The government say that want to take on ideas from ordinary voters on how they could save money, make cuts, and avoid duplication and pointless exercises which produce no benefits but use up lots of cash.
So I have an idea.
Why not scrap plans announced just this week that every council will be required to publish (presumably on the internet), every piece of expenditure which exceeds £500.
Your typical council must spend amounts in excess of £500 several times a day, and this will have to be logged, reported, passed on, duplicated, scanned and accounted for by a member of staff. It could easily be a job that could take up 100% of a member of staff's time. So Taking in to account National Insurance, the printed, duplicating, wages, and other associated costs, you can assume this will cost a council around £18000 a year.
If we extrapolate these costs across Norfolk (8 councils), we can assume that this decision will cost Norfolk taxpayers around £150000 a year, each and every year.
So come on Mr Pickles, abandon your plans and save taxpayers the money.
7 comments:
I guess it depends on what accounting system the council uses. I have worked in companies where the expenses and invoices are all posted with a simple code employee No, Department, expenses category and then the details posted. It was a web based system so would take no effort at all to just update a website with the information.
We gave managers full breakdowns, or emailed them within minutes for their entire departments accounts. Overnight a council's system could update a website.
Oh dear!
"...logged, reported, passed on, duplicated, scanned and accounted for by a member of staff"
If that's your idea of an efficient data management system, perhaps you should steer clear of local government. It's that kind of over-manning in the public sector which has got us into this mess.
CromwellChiefofMen
The fiscal case for Criminal Justice Reform
"The United States currently incarcerates a higher share of its population than any other country in the world. We calculate that a reduction in incarceration rates just to the level we had in 1993 (which was already high by historical standards) would lower correctional expenditures by $16.9 billion per year, with the large majority of these savings accruing to financially squeezed state and local governments. As a group, state governments could save $7.6 billion, while local governments could save $7.2 billion.
These cost savings could be realized through a reduction by one-half in the incarceration rate of exclusively non-violent offenders, who now make up over 60 percent of the prison and jail population.
A review of the extensive research on incarceration and crime suggests that these savings could be achieved without any appreciable deterioration in public safety".
Source: Prison Law Blog
Winston S. Churchill as Home Secretary halved our prison population...
as someone who has worked in criminal justice fo 13 years - I completely agree!!
Why not just leagalise non violent burglary?
Totally OT.
I have just read in the Daily Mail that the Chief Constable of Norfolk intends to stop chasing Government Targets and chase criminals instead.
What a novel idea!
Today the Sun is reporting that taxpayers face a £60m bill for cons being denied the vote. I think it is a conservative estimate, more likely to be £75m. Then there is the £60m for the European Election...
We can save money if in future the government does not break the law by ignoring a court judgment!
Post a Comment