Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

council to save £5 million


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Wheesht

Wheesht

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 03:12 PM

why in one hand should the council want to save money and the other want to spend heeps on a new venue? beats me?


Hey Sammy, the funds won't come from the Council's direct funding for that venture, if it happens, so don't confuse spending issues here.

#22 Sam

Sam

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 05:21 PM

why in one hand should the council want to save money and the other want to spend heeps on a new venue? beats me?


Hey Sammy, the funds won't come from the Council's direct funding for that venture, if it happens, so don't confuse spending issues here.


oh thats very interesting so where is the 80k overspend comming from every year? is the charitable trust paying the over spend? thats if the projected sums come true and when does that ever happen?

its very easy to think whare money can be saved as long as its not your job or a family member thats thrown on the dole. even if the do the week things like buying the paper etc in bulk from viking direct but then people would moan that the council is not suporting local busines.

what ever they do the poor council would never win.

i think we in shetland are very lucky to have such good services up here - i have family who live in various places in scotland and they are amased on the things we get here - most for free. especialy if you are over 60/65

id say to most peole make the best of what we have as if shetland turns like else whare in scotland then we would have somting to moan about

#23 Pooks

Pooks

    Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 2603 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 11:19 PM

its very easy to think whare money can be saved as long as its not your job or a family member thats thrown on the dole. even if the do the week things like buying the paper etc in bulk from viking direct but then people would moan that the council is not suporting local busines.

I have no idea where the council gets its stationary from at the moment and that is not the point I was making. They can still have the same output without it having to be the 'best of the best' of materials.

what ever they do the poor council would never win.

This I agree with. Everybody has varying opinions on what is and what isn't right but I think the majority agree that the council should perhaps listen to the public more often.

id say to most peole make the best of what we have as if shetland turns like else whare in scotland then we would have somting to moan about

I think the point being made is that Shetland could easily turn out like elsewhere in Scotland if we aren't careful...

#24 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9030 posts

Posted 03 May 2006 - 12:54 AM

its very easy to think whare money can be saved as long as its not your job or a family member thats thrown on the dole. even if the do the week things like buying the paper etc in bulk from viking direct but then people would moan that the council is not suporting local busines.


That's fine and well as long as local businesses who supply the council with goods/services, don't see those contracts as the goose that lays the golden egg, and hike the cost accordingly. In the very recent past at least it was very much an open secret in certain business circles that you could automatically add an additional percentage to your quote because it was a "cooncil job", and they'd buy it, as all your competitors would be doing the same, and you wouldn't be compromising your competitiveness any.

As regards stationery in particular, as it is what's being brought to question here. Why should the council support local business when their price is up to double what a comparative product is obtainable for elsewhere? Now, if you consider having the council squander your Council Tax money in such a way well worth it to keep local stationery/office supplies companies afloat, then so be it, it's your money, and you're entitled to your opinion as to how it's spent on your behalf. I do however object in the strongest possible terms to the council squandering my Council Tax money in such a way, as far as I'm concerned I entrust them to spend my Council Tax money as prudently as possible, by purchasing the most economical products/services for the job, and if they are not using the cheapest supplier that is available, they are most certainly not doing that. I have to purchase goods/services in this manner for my own personal use, it is the only way I can survive, it always has been, so why should I expect anything less from those whom I entrust the spending of my money on my behalf.

It could very well be argued that a local business, or any business, that cannot be competitive against their competitors, regardless of the location etc of those competitors, is no longer a viable business, and requires restructuring or closure. For the council to artifically help keep that business in existence by paying it inflated prices for the products/services it supplies, is effectively pouring a hidden public subsidy in to the pockets of a very few. Have we not had more than a gutful of public money disappearing that way of late, a slew of salmon enterprises, a floating dock, and whatever that debacle was at Rova Head a few years ago. All swallowed massive paychecks that were never recovered when the dust settled. Do we want any more public funds heading the same way, be it as overt lump sums or as a steady covert trickle.

#25 shetlander

shetlander

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 03 May 2006 - 03:40 AM

My own view is that if the Council is trying to convince the public that cuts to services are necessary it needs to be seen to be making common sense changes to the way it does things itself. However unfortunate, if changing suppliers means they no longer support local businesses then so be it. Like providing jobs, supporting local businesses is merely a side benefit of the Council’s existence.

High levels of staffing is of course an issue and the first priority should be to look at how non frontline staff can be cut. Why should managers or office based staff be exclusively targeted though? Are the numbers of frontline staff currently employed by the Council really necessary? I certainly don’t think so. Many schools for example are staffed by a small army sometimes exceeding the number of pupils they are there to serve. If the small schools do indeed stay open, surely there is scope to centralise functions like administration and the cooking of school meals in places where there are a number of relatively small schools in close proximity to each other so that only one person is needed to carry out all of the ancillary functions? Generally, a consciousness always to be thinking about how things could be done more efficiently seems to be absent from day to day decision making by those in charge and cuts only come about when they are forced on managers after warnings from the Head of Finance or the Chief Executive.

The bottom line is that everyone has to realise that we have been spoilt by the Council for many years and that instead of screaming blue murder when the next round of suggested cuts are announced we need to think about whether they are really going to affect us all that much and accept that they might just be necessary. The public need to be encouraged to speak to the Council (privately if necessary) about what cuts they think could be made to services in their area instead of pointing the finger at other geographical areas/services they don’t use/projects that won’t benefit them. Everyone is going to have to bear the brunt to some extent.

#26 Birsey

Birsey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:46 PM

Forgive me if I am being silly, but surely spending £422 000 on a new public toilets at the Esplanade is a pretty poor way to go about saving money. I am not disputting the fact that a new convenience may be required but in the name of all that is holy they must be able to do it for less than that.

#27 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9030 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 08:21 PM

Most of that will be for the gold plated taps and solid marble floor. :wink: You have to hand it to whoever designs most council stuff, never is it just something plain ordinary and functional, always there's that veneer of faux grandoise included, which eats up a chunk of the budget.

I wonder just how much a tin hut with a few holes in the floor, and a pipe across to the sewer pump would cost?

#28 Birsey

Birsey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 08:24 PM

Left to da councils devices approx £200 000.

#29 Distortio

Distortio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 602 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 12:25 AM

a tin hut with a few holes in the floor, and a pipe across to the sewer pump would cost?


an excellent idea, but surely that could be improved by introducing some private sector ingenuity...

ADVANCE BOOKINGS TAKEN!
ONLY £1 TO SPEND A PENNY!

(SAVE TIME, BOOK ONLINE!)


Book your own exclusive TOILET TIME (*only available when available) whereby customers can purchase in advance any potential visits needed in a given night to the only available public toilet of their choosing.

Any double-bookings to be decided on a who-will-happily-piss-up-a-lane basis.

PEE-Commerce ~ Streamlining your bodily functions

#30 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2135 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:22 PM

Perhaps it will have pre-warmed seats 8O

#31 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9030 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:29 PM

Perhaps it will have pre-warmed seats 8O


Lets hope they have a damn good failsafe system in place then, for when the thermostats get a bit wonky, or life on the Esplanade as we know it will never be the same again. :?

#32 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2135 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:34 PM

Do you think that they will build it to look like a cottage :wink:

#33 peeriebryan

peeriebryan

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5902 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:40 PM

Do you think that they will build it to look like a cottage :wink:

I think I get that, but I probably shouldn't :oops: You're on fire today BigMouth! :wink:

#34 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2135 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:42 PM

Do you think that they will build it to look like a cottage :wink:

I think I get that, but I probably shouldn't :oops: You're on fire today BigMouth! :wink:


There's this bleedin monkey following me about everywhere :wink: :D