The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

Why should means testing mean, on something related to incomes which we already have the information on in the tax office, employing more civil servants? Surely you just get rid of the child benefit office and have it administered by the tax office as it's a function of tax payable?

Answer: They probably can't do that, because the Tax IT system doesn't know how many kids people have got and they allow departments to build IT systems that don't talk to each other...

That will only get worse as decentralisation accelerates. Its the reason that most of our agencies duplicate jobs, waste time because they find it difficult to communicate with each other, and as you say they are/will be purchasing IT systems in a completely independent way. Which, just to add insult to injury, will make them more expensive, after all, we all know the benefit of bulk buying. Quangos et al were invented in the eighties to challenge local government power (traditionally seen as left leaning) and cost us more. They were a political, not economical, initiative. with PFI's and the like thrown in, we're paying more than we should for a less efficient service. I doubt Tesco's would advocate de-centralizing, and I bet they are bloody efficient.

There is a fine balance LK. There have been plenty of intiatives to centralise systems and the main problem is with complex systems it ends up costing a hell of a lot of money and doesn't always deliver.

You're right about Tesco but I suppose their requirements are a lot more simpler to define and they have the ability to spend whatever they like to get the best systems possible. If Tesco make a mistake (and they do) its usually a few people end up being refunded for paying too much or whatever and then its done and dusted. If the tax system falls down or a GP computer system makes errors etc you're in a whole different situation.

[Worthy4England]

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

Why should means testing mean, on something related to incomes which we already have the information on in the tax office, employing more civil servants? Surely you just get rid of the child benefit office and have it administered by the tax office as it's a function of tax payable?

Answer: They probably can't do that, because the Tax IT system doesn't know how many kids people have got and they allow departments to build IT systems that don't talk to each other...

indeed - the tax system is built on individuals - not on family income - women saw this as a big breakthrough a few years ago. This is one of the reasons they are doing it this way - because HMRC deals with individuals not family units.

Yes I get that, but it's not beyond the whit of computerisation to extract the data.

The problem is with the Departments who have discretion on their own IT spend so if one of the partners (lets say HMRC for arguments sake) said their IT spend this year was going to be on refreshing their desktop estate, the project to link the two systems never gets off the ground and they spend 12 months arguing about the size of the bill for each Department.

What they need to be doing is centralising IT budgets (not diversting them) and coming up with solutions that meet the needs of the system rather than individual Departments...

[thebish]

you're probably right - but there isn't a cat-in-hell's chance of this govt proposing a massive overhaul of civil service software and spunking millions on it after all the talk of labour's expensive IT flops....

[thebish]

Glad to see the Tories are reforming politics top-to-bottom and giving us a democracy to be proud of....

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/84309 ... ek_island/

A COUNCILLOR has been criticised for living at her Greek island holiday home for part of the year while still claiming her council allowance.

Conservative Pamela Tomlinson last attended a South Oxfordshire District Council meeting five months ago, but has continued to claim her basic £2,900-a-year allowance, paid to all councillors.

She said she was still able to work on ward issues from Greece and that her offer to resign her seat had been rejected because the council’s leader did not want to call a by-election.

However, Clifton Hampden Parish Council has complained to district council chief executive David Buckle, claiming residents rarely saw Mrs Tomlinson.

Parish council chairman Chris Dupond said Mrs Tomlinson, who representes Sandford ward, rarely attended their meetings to represent the district council.

Berinsfield district councillor John Cotton has been appearing in her place.

Mr Dupond said: “The parish council has been pretty horrified, and we think it’s quite wrong. We have been dissatisfied for a long time.

“Our meetings were rarely attended, or she used to turn up and read the district council newsletter to us.

“The whole thing has been totally unacceptable.”

Mrs Tomlinson said she had sold her house in Clifton Hampden in May but had another property in Oxfordshire.

She inisisted she was still performing her council duties and spent “less than half” her time abroad.

She said last Wednesday: “It’s a holiday home. Nobody would want to live on a small Greek island full-time.

“I’m still a member of South Oxfordshire District Council, I’m attending a group meeting tomorrow and had meetings in Wallingford and Reading today.

“Yes, I have got a place in Greece, and I have spent some time there over the summer, but it’s quite easy to deal with things by email and I have had another district councillor covering parish council meetings when I have not been there.”

She added that she had offered to resign – but was turned down by the council’s Conservative leader Ann Ducker.

Mrs Ducker said: “She did offer to resign, but because of the timing, we felt that to go to a by-election at this stage was really a waste of money when we have elections coming up in May next year and there’s an alternative way of covering any issues raised by local people.”

[Worthy4England]

There is a fine balance LK. There have been plenty of intiatives to centralise systems and the main problem is with complex systems it ends up costing a hell of a lot of money and doesn't always deliver.

I've dealt with government computer systems periodically on a daily basis for years. I've also dealt with Tesco's. The main reason they're so expensive for Governments and don't always deliver, is the internecine fighting between the budget holders, often leads to a compromise plan at the outset (rather than the best plan at the outset)

LK is pretty much right on the Tescos' front. Much more cohesion. They do have certain advantages though that Government Departments don't have. Tesco's saying we're going to move the logistics function from Finance to Procurement isn't likely to get every fecker out on strike. The Government saying that they're going to move a part of benefit admin to tax is much more fraught with danger. I could give you plenty of examples of Commerical organisations that bollocks it up for the same reason as Government's though....

Overarching strategy is your friend. There isn't one for Government (oh and hasn't been since computerisation hit the Tax Office in the early 80's).

They often can't get it right within Departments, where there's more than one budget controller...

[BWFC_Insane]

There is a fine balance LK. There have been plenty of intiatives to centralise systems and the main problem is with complex systems it ends up costing a hell of a lot of money and doesn't always deliver.

I've dealt with government computer systems periodically on a daily basis for years. I've also dealt with Tesco's. The main reason they're so expensive for Governments and don't always deliver, is the internecine fighting between the budget holders, often leads to a compromise plan at the outset (rather than the best plan at the outset)

LK is pretty much right on the Tescos' front. Much more cohesion. They do have certain advantages though that Government Departments don't have. Tesco's saying we're going to move the logistics function from Finance to Procurement isn't likely to get every fecker out on strike. The Government saying that they're going to move a part of benefit admin to tax is much more fraught with danger. I could give you plenty of examples of Commerical organisations that bollocks it up for the same reason as Government's though....

Overarching strategy is your friend. There isn't one for Government (oh and hasn't been since computerisation hit the Tax Office in the early 80's).

They often can't get it right within Departments, where there's more than one budget controller...

Yeah thats very true W4E. I've had some very small experience a while ago of healthcare IT systems and its the same issues as you describe. GPs want one thing hospital trusts another they need to interface but neither side can agree how or with what. You then have the long list of rules that must be adhered to in terms of data protection but even further than that in build protection within the systems, so for example Gail Platt can't access things she shouldn't be doing etc.

Utter nightmare. And one that Tesco can solve easily but its far harder for the public sector for the reasons you outlined. At the end of the day Tesco's senior management make a decision and thats that. Try telling a GP what IT system he's going to have to use and all hell breaks loose!

[thebish]

Cameron has finished speaking- no detail, no concrete, no real substance...

a bulging bag of dribbly wank....

oh - and look, I have a baby

[Bruce Rioja]

Cameron has finished speaking- no detail, no concrete, no real substance...

a bulging bag of dribbly wank....

oh - and look, I have a baby

Most Easily Forseeable Post Ever Competition - WINNER!

[thebish]

Cameron has finished speaking- no detail, no concrete, no real substance...

a bulging bag of dribbly wank....

oh - and look, I have a baby

Most Easily Forseeable Post Ever Competition - WINNER!

and you come in a very close second...

[Bruce Rioja]

Cameron has finished speaking- no detail, no concrete, no real substance...

a bulging bag of dribbly wank....

oh - and look, I have a baby

Most Easily Forseeable Post Ever Competition - WINNER!

and you come in a very close second...

Hmm, I didn't see that coming.

[thebish]

Cameron has finished speaking- no detail, no concrete, no real substance...

a bulging bag of dribbly wank....

oh - and look, I have a baby

Most Easily Forseeable Post Ever Competition - WINNER!

and you come in a very close second...

Hmm, I didn't see that coming.

nor I that....

[Prufrock]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

But they don't take your money to give you your money back. It isn't a savings account. I don't remember there being a 'having a child' tax.

They do take your money to give it back, otherwise there's not a lot of point in them taking it in the first place. That's not to say they take an individual's money to give the same amount back to the same individual.

When they take your money, some of it does head back to the same individuals in a roundabout way (i.e. if they were redundant, or sick, or borrow a book from the library or send their kids to a state run school).

So in that sense it is a savings account, although without conferring the right for people to take out what they've put in, and at the same time allowing people to take out, what they haven't put in.

Child Benefit is part of that overall system, so the arguments against it are fairly spurious, unless you happen not to have kids.

As I've said all along, it should be means tested, rather than just given to everyone.

For those earning over the 40% marginal rate, it'll just be effectively a tax hike.

That's why I put 'your' twice. I was trying to say what you just did but couldn't be arsed typing it out

[Worthy4England]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

But they don't take your money to give you your money back. It isn't a savings account. I don't remember there being a 'having a child' tax.

They do take your money to give it back, otherwise there's not a lot of point in them taking it in the first place. That's not to say they take an individual's money to give the same amount back to the same individual.

When they take your money, some of it does head back to the same individuals in a roundabout way (i.e. if they were redundant, or sick, or borrow a book from the library or send their kids to a state run school).

So in that sense it is a savings account, although without conferring the right for people to take out what they've put in, and at the same time allowing people to take out, what they haven't put in.

Child Benefit is part of that overall system, so the arguments against it are fairly spurious, unless you happen not to have kids.

As I've said all along, it should be means tested, rather than just given to everyone.

For those earning over the 40% marginal rate, it'll just be effectively a tax hike.

That's why I put 'your' twice. I was trying to say what you just did but couldn't be arsed typing it out

Well type it out yerself next time. Slackass. Bloody yoof of today...

[thebish]

Lest we forget....

[Lord Kangana]

As I say, policy pledges should be legally binding.

[BWFC_Insane]

Lest we forget....

This photo should go in the new OED under the word "sell-out".

[Hoboh]

Lest we forget....

This photo should go in the new OED under the word "sell-out".

Is the red bearded one Sir Nut? and whose the other white guy the politicians on the left in the photo have given the pledges too?

[thebish]

the inimitable Steve Bell!

[Harry Genshaw]

I thought Ed Milliband gave a surprisingly good performance at PM q's today. Still cant see him appealing to the general electorate though.

[William the White]

Lest we forget....

This photo should go in the new OED under the word "sell-out".

True, but it has surprised me how cheap it was to buy the Lib Dems... They are the Aldi of British politics but without the class...