Would you vote in favour of raising taxes?
Discussion
herewego said:
I don't think this would really tell you where any waste lay because you wouldn't know what had been done to minimise costs. e.g. Do they have the cheapest electricity and are all the lights, heaters, urns, computers etc. turned off when not in use.
Maybe ask does the finance department constantly review value for money in all departments and is there an annual report from them detailing their performance.
The computers turned off when not in use annoys me. sixpence saved, and now you need to send engineers out to make sure they are back on for updates out of working hours.Maybe ask does the finance department constantly review value for money in all departments and is there an annual report from them detailing their performance.
randlemarcus said:
herewego said:
I don't think this would really tell you where any waste lay because you wouldn't know what had been done to minimise costs. e.g. Do they have the cheapest electricity and are all the lights, heaters, urns, computers etc. turned off when not in use.
Maybe ask does the finance department constantly review value for money in all departments and is there an annual report from them detailing their performance.
The computers turned off when not in use annoys me. sixpence saved, and now you need to send engineers out to make sure they are back on for updates out of working hours.Maybe ask does the finance department constantly review value for money in all departments and is there an annual report from them detailing their performance.
hornetrider said:
Countdown said:
hornetrider said:
Are you expecting the 'family members' to give up work in order to care for elderly relatives?
Why not? With regards to the "taxpayer" point the average person pays £5k tax per annum. It costs the taxpayer £20k per annum for somebody to be in an LA home. So if people looked after their own elderly parents the net saving to the tax payer is £15k per person. However the cost to the individual who has to give up their job to look after an ageing relative is significantly more.
That's the £64bn questions..... do we carry on socialising costs or should we expect individuals to make their own provisions? We can't have it both ways.
Countdown said:
My knowledge of benefits isn't great but I don't think somebody would get the dole if their partner was working.
With regards to the "taxpayer" point the average person pays £5k tax per annum. It costs the taxpayer £20k per annum for somebody to be in an LA home. So if people looked after their own elderly parents the net saving to the tax payer is £15k per person. However the cost to the individual who has to give up their job to look after an ageing relative is significantly more.
Make this man Chancellor of the Exchequer With regards to the "taxpayer" point the average person pays £5k tax per annum. It costs the taxpayer £20k per annum for somebody to be in an LA home. So if people looked after their own elderly parents the net saving to the tax payer is £15k per person. However the cost to the individual who has to give up their job to look after an ageing relative is significantly more.
Guybrush said:
Raise taxes because they've cut 'front-line' services while maintaining their behind the front line overmanned / overpaid/ underworked positions? No way.
This is the big problem with making cuts. They always let the management which is the problem make the decisions rather than getting rid of them.hornetrider said:
Make this man Chancellor of the Exchequer
Going back to the original thread - there's a fair amount of inefficiency in the Public Sector. However you will find inefficiency in ALL organisations and it's directly correlated to the size of the organisation. The bigger the distance between the person holding the purse strings and the person on the frontline the bigger the opportunity for wastage/inefficiency/corruption. That applies equally to both Public and Private sectors.
egor110 said:
REALIST123 said:
Not me. Not for local or central government. IME there are plenty of 'services' that are very poor value for money and could be stopped and lots of money wasted at all levels.
I doubt that the people of Liverpool will all think that way though.
What services would you cut? I doubt that the people of Liverpool will all think that way though.
Speaking about where I am, the first to stop would be the environmental department. Unfortunately had to have some interaction with them over the past few years and found them inept, inadequate and a total waste of resources.
Of course it's not necessarily about cutting 'services' it's about achieving some basic levels of efficiency and management too. I've seen some mindblowing examples of crass stupidity and gross waste. As has anyone with their eyes open.
Countdown said:
hornetrider said:
Make this man Chancellor of the Exchequer
Going back to the original thread - there's a fair amount of inefficiency in the Public Sector. However you will find inefficiency in ALL organisations and it's directly correlated to the size of the organisation. The bigger the distance between the person holding the purse strings and the person on the frontline the bigger the opportunity for wastage/inefficiency/corruption. That applies equally to both Public and Private sectors.
Perhaps but only one sector can try to recoup its cost from the taxpayer.
Countdown said:
egor110 said:
Which is fine if there just getting old but the fact is more and more people end up with dementia and with the best will in the world the average family at home has no idea how to care for them.
I understand that, but most people in care homes don't have dementia. They just need somebody to keep an eye on them, help them get changed, washed, and fed. Care workers don't do anything which the average family member couldn't do.REALIST123 said:
Perhaps but only one sector can try to recoup its cost from the taxpayer.
Free market economics can be applied to the Public Sector quite easily but it wouldn't be politically popular.(ie Privatise all Public Sector services).
Privatise the entire thing. Why is there a layer of public sector operating as a monopoly and administrating tenders to contractors ? The whole idea of small councils is a Victorian hangover where it just wouldn't work to have large areas administered on horseback from a central point.
Create administrative regions at something like county size. Put the entire thing out to a 10 year tender. Maybe exclude police / courts if they are in the council budgets today. Get quotes in. Put best 3 or 5 quotes out to the electorate to vote on. And that's for everything - the whole council setup.
That'd get local tax bills down pretty fast.
Create administrative regions at something like county size. Put the entire thing out to a 10 year tender. Maybe exclude police / courts if they are in the council budgets today. Get quotes in. Put best 3 or 5 quotes out to the electorate to vote on. And that's for everything - the whole council setup.
That'd get local tax bills down pretty fast.
Newc said:
Privatise the entire thing. Why is there a layer of public sector operating as a monopoly and administrating tenders to contractors ? The whole idea of small councils is a Victorian hangover where it just wouldn't work to have large areas administered on horseback from a central point.
Create administrative regions at something like county size. Put the entire thing out to a 10 year tender. Maybe exclude police / courts if they are in the council budgets today. Get quotes in. Put best 3 or 5 quotes out to the electorate to vote on. And that's for everything - the whole council setup.
That'd get local tax bills down pretty fast.
Hypothetical question - after awarding the contract they turn out to be complete shoite. What are you going to do?Create administrative regions at something like county size. Put the entire thing out to a 10 year tender. Maybe exclude police / courts if they are in the council budgets today. Get quotes in. Put best 3 or 5 quotes out to the electorate to vote on. And that's for everything - the whole council setup.
That'd get local tax bills down pretty fast.
You might argue that you'll do loads of due diligence and include watertight contract clauses which moves most of the risk onto the winning bid ......
Smollet said:
Between 20-25% of council tax goes on paying the pensions of the staff. Make a start with cutting that and cutting the pay of the executives so no I wouldn't vote for a rise in council tax.
It can be over 50% http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/98...Countdown said:
Hypothetical question - after awarding the contract they turn out to be complete shoite. What are you going to do?
You might argue that you'll do loads of due diligence and include watertight contract clauses which moves most of the risk onto the winning bid ......
Pre-qualification should weed out the rubbish. Split the contract into two lots, ensure that each half goes to a different contractor and that each contractor has sufficient capacity to take on the other half of the contract if the other contractor fails dismally. The scale of local authority budgets and the wide range of services means that this would be a big step away from the current arrangements though.You might argue that you'll do loads of due diligence and include watertight contract clauses which moves most of the risk onto the winning bid ......
V8 Fettler said:
Pre-qualification should weed out the rubbish. Split the contract into two lots, ensure that each half goes to a different contractor and that each contractor has sufficient capacity to take on the other half of the contract if the other contractor fails dismally. The scale of local authority budgets and the wide range of services means that this would be a big step away from the current arrangements though.
So BOTH contractors are going to have 50% surplus capacity? And whose going to pay for having what is effectively 100% backup cover (built in redundancy)? And, given the size of the contract, how many providers do you think are going to be big enough to submit tenders in the first place, before you start "weeding out the rubbish?"You may remember National Express walking away from an unprofitable rail contract. That's a luxury the public sector doesn't have.
I've worked in the Public sector, as has been mentioned waste is absolutely rife. Yes it obviously happens in the public sector too but trust me the private sector are complete amateurs in comparison.
- Incompetent staff and management that NEVER get fired.
- Under staffed on the front line where it counts but massively overstaffed in the back office. I worked in an IT department of 70 which was huge for the IT estate they had, they could have cut 50% of the staff with negligible impact to IT services.
- Money wasted on Councillor vanity projects. The councillors are treated like gods, if they want brand new iphones and ipads every year they get them, all 60 of them.
- Rife nepotism both internally and to 3rd party contracted work.
- Massive inefficiency, duplicated work\effort, projects are always late, over budget and often fail to deliver the desired results.
The problem is privatising isn't the answer either as they can't even get that right. A lot of London councils have effectively privatised by outsourcing most of their services to a 3rd party company. Except the fee they are paying for these outsourced services are more than it would cost to run the services internally and the contracts have been awarded to an Indian offshore company so not only does it cost more for a worse service, all that UK taxpayer money and employment is going into India's coffers rather than staying on our shores. You couldn't make it up.
- Incompetent staff and management that NEVER get fired.
- Under staffed on the front line where it counts but massively overstaffed in the back office. I worked in an IT department of 70 which was huge for the IT estate they had, they could have cut 50% of the staff with negligible impact to IT services.
- Money wasted on Councillor vanity projects. The councillors are treated like gods, if they want brand new iphones and ipads every year they get them, all 60 of them.
- Rife nepotism both internally and to 3rd party contracted work.
- Massive inefficiency, duplicated work\effort, projects are always late, over budget and often fail to deliver the desired results.
The problem is privatising isn't the answer either as they can't even get that right. A lot of London councils have effectively privatised by outsourcing most of their services to a 3rd party company. Except the fee they are paying for these outsourced services are more than it would cost to run the services internally and the contracts have been awarded to an Indian offshore company so not only does it cost more for a worse service, all that UK taxpayer money and employment is going into India's coffers rather than staying on our shores. You couldn't make it up.
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
Pre-qualification should weed out the rubbish. Split the contract into two lots, ensure that each half goes to a different contractor and that each contractor has sufficient capacity to take on the other half of the contract if the other contractor fails dismally. The scale of local authority budgets and the wide range of services means that this would be a big step away from the current arrangements though.
So BOTH contractors are going to have 50% surplus capacity? And whose going to pay for having what is effectively 100% backup cover (built in redundancy)? And, given the size of the contract, how many providers do you think are going to be big enough to submit tenders in the first place, before you start "weeding out the rubbish?"You may remember National Express walking away from an unprofitable rail contract. That's a luxury the public sector doesn't have.
Have I not already stated that the scale of local authority budgets and the wide range of services means that this would be a big step away from the current arrangements?
A well-designed contract would not have permitted National Express to default on the East Coast rail franchise without substantial financial penalty and the inability to qualify for similar contracts in future.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff