 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9127055/The-Whitehall-efficiency-drive-that-increased-costs.html ]well, that went well[/url]
You really couldn't make it up. I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing, courtesy of Call-me-Dave's present outsourcing frenzy
God help us 🙄
I'm sure that over the next 1000 years, we'll see a net gain. Don't be so cynical.
Don't let the fact these schemes were set up under the previous government get in the way of your anti-tory sentiments. To be fair it's a cross party thing though, and this article isn't news - has any attempt to save money in the civil service ever succeeded?
Am I blaming the Tories? I must have missed that bit. The new labour ****-wits were truly world class at spunking money away. What's worrying though is the present, typical Tory philosophy of "if we privatise/out-source everything, then that's bound to save money!"
Seems CMD is a bit keen on that. See the NHS/Police/Education for example.
I can't see this evidence to the contrary changing the philosophy much. Can you?
spent £1.4?billion in an attempt to save £159? million
Someone clearly got the wrong end of the stick when they heard someone say "you've got to spend money to make money" ...
two of the five schemes ... have not kept track of whether or not the changes are saving money
Oh, for crying out loud for goodness' sake ... supreme idiocy. well done those people.
Binners - I am confused about the point you are making. You have posted a link from the Torygraph that suggests that government programs to deliver greater efficiency have not worked. It makes no mention (unless I have mis-read it) of any private sector involvement, merely makes a contrast between the lack of success and the typical success seen in the private sector with similar schemes. Then you jump into the CMD supposed "outsource everything" argument.
Excuse me for being really thick, but where is the link in the article? And, if the government cannot deliver (and by the sounds of it) even monitor the results (help us?!?), what is the support for not seeking some help in this area?
So which idiot [url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/73c6e766-682c-11e1-a6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oXHsXkwW ]government[/url] takes the blame when the scheme started in 2004?
Hopefully the systems will work and save money in the future but the bigger problem of controlling Whitehall still needs to be addressed.
Actually THM, you're right. It seems like, reading more into it [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/07/whitehall-efficiency-drive-government-taxpayer-millions_n_1325768.html ]here[/url] another familiar government trait was to blame. Namely being bamboozled by Sales people into commissioning yet more ludicrous, doomed IT projects
[i]It questioned why officials ordered expensive IT systems without even considering far cheaper versions which would have been more than adequate.[/i]
When the **** are they ever going to learn?
EDIT: The point I'm trying to make, is that with a government presently saying they're going to save billions from 'efficiency savings', how much more of this type of thing is presently underway. A lot, I suspect. I think they're all as bad as each other> it seems like no matter who's in 'power', this is the inevitable upshot of it
If anyone can be bothered finding it, there's an excellent David Mitchell rant on YouTube about politicians campaigning agaist 'waste'
David Mitchell's Soapbox? Excellent series
Yup, that was it.
The point I'm trying to make, is that with a government presently saying they're going to save billions from 'efficiency savings', how much more of this type of thing is presently underway. A lot, I suspect. I think they're all as bad as each other> it seems like no matter who's in 'power', this is the inevitable upshot of it
A lot of contracts where rushed through before the election knowing that Labour were not going to be in power. No doubt these contracts have crippling get out clauses ensuring big business wins either way whilst the tax payer funds it all.
Items that you can control to try and make ends meet will no doubt be cut whilst others that you can't due to the cost breaking the contract you suffer. The problem is that the ones that suffer are those loosing their jobs in the public sector and others loosing services they needed due to lack of funding.