Forum Topics

Is this a waste of money ???

Coming to every household on March 27 - a National Census, some 32 pages long, there will be no fewer than 918 boxes for you to tick in answer to questions! It will ask not only your age and job title, but also what type of central heating you use, when you last worked and who has been staying in your house.It will demand you tell the authorities whether you travel to work by motorcycle, scooter, moped or some other mode of transport. It will ask you deeply personal questions about your sexual orientation and emotional preferences. It will ask you when you last worked.It will ask about your ethincity: if you are white, you will be able to tick a box saying you are Engliish/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish, British or, alternatively, one of three separate boxes for Irish, Gypsy or Irish traveller and any other type of white background. The tick box system for black, Asicn ans mixed race groups is equally ridiculous. And then there are such vacuous questions as: how is your general health?The Cabinet minister responsible for the census is Francis Maude, and he has behaved with complete feebleness about the whole matter. He more or less admits that the census is quite unnecessary in the computer age. He says that too much money has been spent on this BEFORE the Government came into office and to cancel would run up excessive expenditure! So we are having a census that the Government tacitly admits is a waste of money and time!Failure to complete this form will result in a £1,000 fine!How can we spend £500m on this useless and intrusive census? It is astonishing that we are spending £500m money on this sort of thing. Already all our information is on one computer or another, and that is a worry enough in itself. So many incidents of personal data which has been left on public transport. Now in today's paper it seems that there is census security fears over US firm whose staff stole Obama's student records! They will be responsible for all the information collected!Should we be concerned?

Jean F Fernandez ● 5724d15 Comments ● 5712d

£500+ SPENDING. Council from the top down mired in waste

Council spending detail over £500 is on webpage. http://www2.ealing.gov.uk/services/business/procurement/500/As the Chief Executive seems to be in the frame at the moment, and someone presumably has brought that to his attention, I had a look at the expenditure in Quarter two 2010. In that period the Excel sheet of invoices tells us that the total expenditure against his department was £299,294.83.Out of that total on Stationery Consumables and Printing his department spent £184,664.48.Obviously I cannot say if that was a lot or a little but what I can and do ask is why on earth does his department need to use 30 different contractors to provide this service for his department.Using 30 contractors for apparently just one department when the country is broke, is just shameful. When looking at the total expenditure for all departments for Stationery Consumables and Printing for this quarter the cost was £382,066.77, but this time there was a monstrous number of 75 different suppliers. Do 3,373 Council employees really need so many suppliers?Have they not heard of bulk buying discounts? Have they not heard of the economy of scale in dealing with just a small handful of contractors? And under the heading of sharing suppliers with other West London Alliance Councils has the Chief Executive considered the further discounts which would then also be available? Once we see his department starting to lead by example, then at the same time some of the massive invoices paid by some other departments need to be looked at to see where else bulk buying would reduce the annual Council spending.I think Minister Pickles would be interested in this example of poor management. Over to you Councillor Taylor.

George Knox ● 5737d13 Comments ● 5716d

To Councillor Phil Taylor: re South Ealing Road 'Improvements'

Councillor Taylor, you told us: "It is worth remembering that this scheme is funded by TfL so if we strip out all of the road safety aspects they will not fund it.  But, if we don’t want it we don’t have to have it". I have put this to the Council's Assistant Director of Strategic Transport, Nick O'Donnell, who is responsible for this scheme, and he advises: "To clarify on Councillor Taylor's comments, it is up to the Borough how we spend our allocation of money.  If we wish a corridor to include road safety measures or not has no bearing on the funding.  I trust this clarifies that point".So one of you is talking rubbish and misinforming us. Which one is it? - you or him? - does this scheme really depend on yet-to-be-secured funding from TfL, dependent on demonstrable accident and casualty eduction justification, as you forcefully claim, or has all the funding necessary already been secured and allocated, as Mr O'Donnell equally forcefully claims?Whichver, you can take it from me that this scheme as currently proposed has NO meaningful correlation with the actual accident record on thus corridor - which is remarkably good - having analysed in detail the three years' injury accident records on which the Council claims the scheme to be based, and checked the results against the actual scheme proposed, and there is NO accident-based justification for any of the works proposed.

Chris Veasey ● 5720d5 Comments ● 5716d