| Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum. New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join The Arab League! If you're already a member please log in: |
| Defence Cuts | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 20 2010, 08:32 AM (3,661 Views) | |
| findus | Oct 23 2010, 08:10 AM Post #46 |
|
Jerry Kerr
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm with ya, Chip! ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Skeletor | Oct 23 2010, 04:33 PM Post #47 |
|
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Some scathing articles posted up, and a very interesting read. What I can't get is why the political parties would be that stupid, if the problems are so glaringly exposed by a professional journalist. All I hear when I tune in that some guys in red making a statement of fact that really riles up the guys in blue, then the guys in blue stand up and retaliate with an equally as damning fact about the guys in red. They're both wrong, they're both right. What I can't get is, why aren't they both coming to the same logical conclusions that educated people with common sense are coming to - are we really to think these professionals are that ignorant or, how are they secretly benefitting from making these wrong decisions? |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Oct 24 2010, 09:19 AM Post #48 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's a fair question. And, I guess, the answer is realpolitik. It might turn out that we need two aircraft carriers and an incompatible fleet of long-range bombers over the next decade. No-one can say for sure. However, it does seem that the shape of the fleets has been defined by what would generate the least quasipolitical and corporate resistance. For example, it's interesting that, while everyone from insulation installers (Eaga) to telecoms companies (C&W) and publishers (Dods) have warned that the CSR will take a bite out of profit, the defence contractors are unaffected. |
![]() |
|
| Alpha | Oct 25 2010, 06:01 PM Post #49 |
|
Craig Brewster
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Couple of points one spot on the topic and one a little of it but related. I caught the last 20mins of a documentary on Channel 4 regarding the MoD. The program looked at how the MoD purchases it equipment. One example it cited was where the MoD had purchased body armour for troops were the material designed to keep the wearer cool was inside out. Yet the SAS had the ability to go to a local military hardware shop and purchase over the counter equipment that was better quality and cheaper than the stuff the MoD had on general order. It would seem the Govt (any party) and the MoD are seen as soft touches for the corporate sector to make a fat thing from. Now on to my slightly off topic part. I used to work in IT and one of the contracts we had was to install and provide support for the Meat Hygiene Service. This was a sub contract from a company in England who had the contract with the Govt to provide this service. (still with me?) The premise of this IT system was to streamline data input of the inspectors time sheets from the various sites around the UK. The system was such a pain to work, the inspectors were actually getting paid more overtime per week as it took so long for each person to enter the data vs the old method of a printed sheet, pencil and fax machine. The other issue was regarding the servicing of the equipment, I recall clearly visiting a site that the pc had a minor problem, (eject mech on a floppy drive). Turns out a small bit of metal had become slightly bent, after a whole 40 seconds to diagnose the problem and straighten the offending bit of metal the problem was resolved. On reporting this to the company who had the Govt contract, they insisted we had to replace the whole tower. So not only did every tax payer in the Uk cough up part of that new machine, they also paid for 2 hours of engineering time to setup and reconfigure this new machine. No wonder the country is in the mess it is when corporate companies just plain take the p*ss and get away with it time after time. |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Oct 25 2010, 06:16 PM Post #50 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's the getting away with it that's the problem. Anyone will take what they can get away with in most cases. The attitude of government spending whatever they want, without any care, would be the thing that could stop the waste most easily. |
![]() |
|
| The Eggman | Oct 26 2010, 09:24 AM Post #51 |
|
Tommy McLean
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not easy to determine definitely what "waste" amounts to. Sure, in this individual case, then that's wasteful (replacing a tower when it would've been working again with a little bit of tweaking). But I'm dubious about huge figures put forward that say "x billion is being wasted each year in the Home Office". I'm sure many people think by default that simply by employing a certain amount of civil servants, there's waste, and that the same work could be done with less civil servants. |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Oct 26 2010, 09:49 AM Post #52 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree on the way the figures are used - same with efficiency savings - numbers plucked out of the sky, but there are surely a lot of instances where savings can be made. As someone who's started a small business on an tiny budget, and scraped together any old computer and office equipment, complete with dodgy floppy drives, it always was a bit frustrating going to various government offices and them having way way nicer equipment and stuff that seemed luxury. |
![]() |
|
| The Eggman | Oct 26 2010, 10:02 AM Post #53 |
|
Tommy McLean
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I want government offices to be using up-to-date computers, since government offices are servicing the public. I'm not saying you're suggesting that government offices should have old, dodgy computers. Some people will suggest, however, that government offices should make do with older computers (therefore some waste), while some (eg, me) say that they should be up-to-date (not waste). Since I was tuped to a private company, I've not had any new equipment, and the servers have been stripped from being dedicated servers to hosting loads of shit, which I'm sure has saved money in hardware, but has made performance suffer. So now when I get an enquiry, it takes a fair bit longer to respond (when I can, if the application decides not to hang). |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Oct 26 2010, 10:32 AM Post #54 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As ever, the middle balance must be aimed for in my opinon. Not every government department is luxury by any imagination, I'm sure there are lots that are badly in need of repairs. Just look at some schools. It's more the frivilous spending rather than maintinance or repairs that seems to be the main highlighted overspending or waste. Like not bothering to look for the cheapest prices or as above being way overcharged for things because of a lack of checks on spending. If anyone spends anything at my company, I want to know if it's the best deal. Not necessarily the cheapest, but best value for money. Whatever the performance levels for your company, if it's not good enough, then the company will suffer to an extent it might not be able to offer anything anyone would want to pay for. (Execpt the government maybe...) |
![]() |
|
| The Eggman | Oct 26 2010, 10:46 AM Post #55 |
|
Tommy McLean
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's fair enough. Of course, we may need to view the relationship between buyer and supplier as a whole (contract terms and conditions etc), rather than just individual items. The media (Daily Mail especially) doesn't help by its reporting of the individual cases of seemingly mad spending, while ignoring a trend of national and local government to seek to cut costs; like the whole outsourcing deals that have been going on to even before the recession in 2008. What can the Government do when you have the likes of Nottingham City Council, I think it was, buying 40 odd iPads for their councillors, when they were suggested and approved by the councillors themselves (not only was the procurement process ballsed up, but the basic need for councillors to have these is dubious)? There are loads of instances where the clear lack of value for money f*ck ups are the result of an individual having their own opinion on what budgets are for (and not understanding budgets at all). |
![]() |
|
| Cobardon | Oct 26 2010, 11:36 AM Post #56 |
|
Uncle Smurf
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's certainly odd to be having this conversation on a football board though. Any idea that private companies try to be efficient and reduce costs are surely blown out of the water by many of the bigger football clubs. (Though clearly even Aberdeen FC are run better than Aberdeen City Council!) |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Oct 26 2010, 12:16 PM Post #57 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, not like United would ever do that recently... |
![]() |
|
| Cobardon | Oct 26 2010, 12:24 PM Post #58 |
|
Uncle Smurf
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, once they've got to dire levels, they start it, but the amount wasted in football wouldn't be tolerated in any other private business or public body. Bigger clubs than United have bigger problems, clearly, but even we still pay off workers and replace them with others to do what is effectively the same job - can you imagine that anywhere else? |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Oct 26 2010, 12:37 PM Post #59 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd argue that most football clubs are no more nor less wasteful than any £5m-£10m pa turnover business sector that's owned nearly exclusively by fools. They're just a lot harder to liquidate than most shit companies, so the problems snowball. I draw your attention to the procession of fools across the road, all of whom seem to have run their "regular" businesses exactly like they tried to run Dundee. More generally, the unavoidable fact is this: the bigger the organisation, the bigger the inefficiencies. Public or private, that's just how it is. I take the view that essential services are like charity. For example, each £1 you donate ends up in about 10p of aid actually reaching Sudan. But we'll have to live with that, because £1 is simply the cost of getting 10p of aid to Sudan. If we somehow try to cut out the 90p that goes to chuggers, marketing experience managers, grain speculators, border guards, warlords etc, it'd mean no money whatsoever reached Sudan, and that'd be worse. Switch "Sudan" for "the NHS" or "primary schools" and that, pretty much, is how state services work the world over. Having a civilised society is expensive. Part of that expense is wasted, or course, though there's no budget I've seen with an easily deletable line on the spreadsheet marked "waste". Therefore, cutting the funding always results in degradation of service and a less civilised society. But that's what we (well, a minority of we) voted for, so that's what we're getting. |
![]() |
|
| Conan the Destroyer | Oct 26 2010, 01:27 PM Post #60 |
![]()
I prefer it when we're pish
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Strictly speaking it was "them" that voted for it, but that's for another day. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






4:36 PM Jul 13