Nice people thread part 3- Nice as pie

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

Or maybe the efficiency measures of the past have been based around some the funding settlements previous governments have made?

but who says these were efficient use of money? These budgets? It is possible to spend unlimited amounts of money on things....I know, I could do it.

A lot of the efficiency measures people have suggested in this thread look good.

My point is just that. They would have looked good in good times to me.

So lets take a look at the efficiency method you suggested... cutting verges less often. Now, under the thatcherite reforms, that were continued under major and blair, most of this kind of work was outsourced.

Generally, the contacts that were made were long term, and at the time were good value for money. That is, they cost less money to do the same amount of work the council used to do.

It is NEVER good value to cut verges and payme to leave an uncut verge inside them, this was the same for a while.

tomterm8

lostinrates wrote: »

but who says these were efficient use of money? These budgets? It is possible to spend unlimited amounts of money on things....I know, I could do it.
My point is just that. They would have looked good in good times to me.

Surely the electorate? If a council spends its money badly, isn't the electorate supposed to remove them?

Surely, efficiency is spending the money you have in the way that gets the best results?

lostinrates wrote: »

It is NEVER good value to cut verges and payme to leave an uncut verge inside them, this was the same for a while.

I disagree. Verges that are on a public highway legally constitutes part of the public highway. Councils have a statutory duty to cut them regularly, and maintain them in good order.

They have no choice other than to exercise that duty.

The land you own isn't part of the public highway, and the funding to increase wildlife diversity is set by the EU under European laws that the UK has very little influence over.

It comes under the same category as the EU requiring fishermen to throw back fish... stupid, but part of the cost of being in the EU.

lemonjelly

tomterm8 wrote: »

But charity support would have to be the first thing I would touch, because it is one of the few things that make an immediate difference to the budget without having additional costs like redundancy pay. And it is not a statutory duty in most cases. Cutting verges is.

I would argue that a lot of the voluntary sector carries out LA statutory duties on its behalf. For a few years the government has got a lot of public services on the cheap via the voluntary sector.

Lets take the example of a citizens advice bureau. LA's have statutory duties to ensur epeople have access to information & advice on issues like money, benefits, employment, housing, health & education. A lot of CABx exist as LA's saw it as easier & cheaper to support this brand name, than set up their own systems.

Yet these are exactly the type of organisations we will see struggling/cut.

I appreciate I've only focussed on 1 para of yours tomterm8, & I suspect we agree on most issues here. But I feel there is a false economy here.:)

tomterm8

Oh, I agree. The irony of this is there are a lot of charities I would like to see have their budget cut, but they are mainly funded by central government and Europe. Some of the charities funded by Europe are basically lobbying groups. And I don't think the trade unions should get money. But, in the main, the charities funded by local councils do a great job.

I agree with most of your post, I just think the practical constraints are this: the homeless, and people struggling with their benefits, are not going to be suing the council any time soon. The bloke with a posh house whose verge isn't cut once every six months... is much more likely to sue.

vivatifosi

While we're having a talk about LAs can I tell you what my District Council did over Christmas? They sent out a leaflet saying that bins were going to be collected on a different day. Here we get all our waste collection on the same day, so they'll collect the bins (green or general) alternate weeks and the same day collect the recyclables. We get a similar leaflet every year and it worked a treat.

So everyone put out their bins as required, and the recyclables didn't get picked up. They'd decided to leave the recyclables collection as was, but didn't tell anyone. We just thought it was something to do with the weather, but no, it was the local council expecting its residents to use ESP to work out when collections were due. If you went to their website, it did actually say with an "oops we messed up" type note of apology. The result has been that the bottle banks and recyclable banks have been bursting at the seams. Totally bonkers.

Anyhow, sorry, wanted to get that off my chest.

LAs have a duty to be effective as well as cost-efficient.

lostinrates

My quotes not working...tomterm re public highway I spent an interesting time at a ws atkins lecture..having been on a local road committee. Noe of the road safety measures statistically ..this was 10 ish years ago....are bourne out. Parking restrictions, road markings and cut verges all increase average speeds.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

LAs have a duty to be effective as well as cost-efficient.

Indeed if it is not effective it is not cost efficient.

tomterm8

vivatifosi wrote: »

LAs have a duty to be effective as well as cost-efficient.

Fairly crap. Not the worst I have heard. My council decided to put tens of millions into Iceland banks just after the credit rating agencies downgraded them, when a blind hamster could have seen they were in trouble.

I'm not arguing all councils are brilliant... why would I? I just don't believe that if they are as incompetent at spending public money as some people believe, that they will be any more competent at managing spending cuts.

lemonjelly

I don't work for an LA, but as a cost efficiency I am paid via their payroll (saves the college having to run one). When I worked for certain charities, the same used to happen.

recently, all staff here got some letter about some council scheme or job evaluation. I know other people working for projects funded by the LA also got these letters. One or two (who didn't bother to read the first sentence) panicked. Everyone else tutted & rolled their eyes upwards. Obviously a mistake, obviously a bit of a waste, but doesn't relate to me, so in the recycling it goes.

Shortly after, an email is forwarded by our cheif exec from the LA apologising for the error. Fine, no worries, bit of a waste of paper etc but there you go.

However, the LA took it upon themselves to then write to everyone who wrongfully got one of these letters, with an apology & the explanation contained in the email.

Now. Was this 2nd letter really necessary?

IMO it was a waste of time & resources.

tomterm8

Sorry, I didn't see this post

lostinrates wrote: »

My quotes not working...tomterm re public highway I spent an interesting time at a ws atkins lecture..having been on a local road committee. Noe of the road safety measures statistically ..this was 10 ish years ago....are bourne out. Parking restrictions, road markings and cut verges all increase average speeds.

That's interesting. From a practical perspective, the central government could save a lot of money by changing the legislative requirements on road markings... every single road marking needs a full consultation, and the process to get anything done is mind numbingly expensive.

I would think, from a practical point of view, that the point of a lot of measures you've mentioned is to speed up traffic. Even cut verges would probably speed up traffic, because it makes it easier to see danger / small children playing.