Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I think there's a link to a story on it in hfconwatch. I should read up on it in a bit more detail, actually. Not clear on the details.
I know the Conservative council wants to knock my local cinema down though. First my milk and now this. Bastards.
It’s like a Tory mini GLC…
The elderly and infirmed are left to die in their own shit but I save about £4 a month on council tax. HOORAY!
I'm not sure that there's much in this story, to be honest. There are always going to be start up costs in the first year.
Are you saying you have to spend money to save money?
And everyone knows that investing is A Good Thing, right?
When I invest in things I prefer to see a return on my money. When I just pay for things or give money to charity I don't. I suspect "investing" is therefore a misnomer.
I’m not going to defend Barnet council’s ideology in this – I think that they’re massive cunts kicking the most vulnerable for the benefit of the most wealthy, and passing on their costs and responsibilities to NHS trusts, charities, central government bodies and neighbouring authorities just so that they can claim success – but I don’t really think you can judge how much money their approach has ‘saved’ until it’s run its course.
I guess what I am trying to relay is my dissatisfaction with the noises emanating from the Tory camp about making cuts, such as these.
Labour got correctly reprimanded for paying too much attention to targets with charges of stupidity and accounting misdemeanours.
I see this reclassification of some services as a continuation of this practice. Dave sees apt to hide it behind the moniker of the 'Big Society'—an ill-defined concept lacking transparency and guideline—deploying decentralised services. My worry is that easyCouncil or John Lewis council or not, some people will be left behind. If this is the case I would readily pine for the waste and inclusiveness of Labour's model.
I do remember child tax credits were fairly universal.
but it's really more Eric Pickle's pet than Cameron's.
What's more concerning than the stuff picked out by the Guardian is that we're over 18 months into this project and yet 'Future Shape':
- still doesn't have an end date. It's open ended.
- doesn't have a proper project plan.
- is still only being talked about at a high level (process and generalities rather than detail)
- doesn't have clear benefits identified for the consolidation project
I quote from Barnet Council's own report on future shape: "I can't help but notice there is no business case, a rudimentary project plan only, resourcing needs are not fully identified, the target operating model is emergent, benefits are expressed as trends rather than quantified."
Hopefully not a microcosm for the rest of the country when the cuts end up dropping the economy into the toilet again and we have to spend more to get back on an even keel
The amount of bad karma that would generate would need to be delivered in dump trucks
Under EU law, all tears shed by the unemployed are to be measured in litres.
massive money-grubbing bastards like.
Shame, it being king of the boroughs.BEES.
It's the 'going forward' of budget cuts.
that something will be "rolled out".
"But let's be perfectly clear on this..."
"Council leaders said they aimed to save around £150 million by making the organisation "more streamlined and efficient".
Good luck with that!
to find sayings....?
I dont understand....have they found a way to cut to save on 1.4 million by spending 1.5 million?...surely thats the same as saying that they have found a way to make an increase in spending?
This is obviously a mix up with words......more detail is necessary to understand this
They are expecting to make much bigger savings in future years, savings which will make the £1.5million insignificant. Its a bit of a non-story at present as the project cannot really be judged after one year. Howerer they did expect to save £3million in the first year and have only acheived 50%; if they continue at that level (and I'll be astonished if they even acheive that) then they will have failed massively on what they claimed they would acheive.
This year they're spending £1.5m.
They expect to reduce costs elsewhere (as a result of this spending) by £1.4m this year.
That doesn't take into account the potential for those savings to be ongoing... i.e. the council may only need to spend £100k to realise the savings next year (speculative example).
you're not quite sure where it's all going but looking around you don't see a lot for your outlay. Your mate Jim's good with numbers though, so he agrees to come in and root through your receipts to identify changes you can make, but you'll need to pay him a fiver for the time.
So Jim comes in and identifies changes you can make (switch to own brand washing powder, take the tube not taxi, etc) that will save you about £4 a week.
So at the end of week 1 you've spent £5 to save £4. But if you keep it up the next week you'll have spent £5 to save £8, and so on.
Now in this articles case you actually needed to save £8 in week 1 and up to £15 in week 3 to come in under your target spending as a flagship EasyCreaky, so the Guardian are all over your books, yo.
The problems arise when Jim's mate Bob pops up in year two and says that he'll find ways to save you another fiver a year. But it'll cost you the best parts of a tenner to find out how. And half way through you pay him a fiver. And shortly after he says it's a bit more complicated than he thought. He'll need another fiver. And you've not really got much of an option but to go along with it cos you're reluctant to write off the fiver Bob's already had off you.
And by the way, this would all be much easier if you invested in some IT to make the whole thing more efficient in the years ahead. It might sound like quite an investment, but hey, IT is the future, right?
is how the Civil Service operates.
and will spend 100k in future years to say 1.4 million everyyear
So the article is misleading in that respect.
the whole thing still seems a bit... scummy, though. How's that for some hardcore political analysis.
when Call Me Dave stopped his sporadic Guardian column
but the truth is, no-one knows for sure since the council are so fucking secretive about it and their recent record on project management isn't too clever either.