We're paying for this?

I'd never heard of the Government Art Collection (GAC) before, but apparently in the past they'ver managed to buy up (with our money) 13,000 works of art by British artists in a variety of media including paintings, sculpture, prints, drawings, photographs, textiles and video works, from the sixteenth century to the present day.
Artists represented in the collection include John Constable, William Hogarth, Lucian Freud, Paul Nash, Barbara Hepworth, Michael Landy, Bridget Riley, Emma Kay and Zarina Bhimji. And I suppose that because some of those have stood the test of time well and increased in value it could be considered a valuable resource, other than the fact that the government is unlikely ever to sell these things.
Telegraph.

If the art works hanging on a wall reflect the frame of mind of the residents, the current mood within Downing Street appears to be a mixture of gloom and dry humour.

Among the new works recently hung in the Prime Minister's official residence is Grim's Ditch, a dark, some might say depressing painting depicting a muddy, waterlogged ditch.

The enamel and oil on aluminium work by the contemporary artist Clare Woods, was bought for £11,985 by the Government Art Collection (GAC), which supplies art for ministerial offices.

At first glance, two other works resemble a pair old newspapers – Financial Times: Billboard Wednesday, September 17 1986 and The Wall Street Journal: Billboard Saturday, July 15, 1985 – by Conrad Atkinson. But on closer inspection, they appear to hint at a sense of humour within Downing Street.

The lithographs, which cost £4,500 for the pair, are spoof versions of the newspapers, with headlines that include: "Premier Thatcher declares new campaign to send intellectuals into the countryside for re-education", "Sir Geoffrey Howe introduces Foucault texts on the nature of power & culture to a packed house," and "Kinnock and Raphael in bust-up about the meaning of beauty."
Another work recently purchased for the GAC includes the abstract work Fireeye Elevator by the artist Michael Stubbs.
The picture features a series of swirls and streaked lines, and came with a £9,500 price tag. It is made from household paint and tinted floor varnish.
Amid a stalling economy, public spending cuts and the threat of another recession, the Government might be expected to tighten its belt when decorating the walls of Whitehall.
But figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph reveal that the GAC has cost more than half a million pounds in the last year.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, has decorated his office with an etching by Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing artist, aptly titled Print for a Politician.
It depicts a battle scene with warring tribes carrying labels such as "provincials", "agnostics" and "homosexuals".
The office of Ed Vaizey, the Culture Minister, is decorated with a cartoon entitled The Mystery of British Culture by Adam Dant, and two prints by Tracey Emin, Margate 1 Sand and Still Love You Margate.
The Government spent £541,000 on the GAC in the last year, and has faced criticism for continuing to purchase art, despite the economic downturn.

Most places of work don't spend their profits on art, only the public sector seem to have this self aggrandisement going on with raids on the public purse to decorate their offices and buildings with (so called) art work that frequently costs thousands of pounds and all coming from the taxpayer. In a time of austerity for all (supposedly) the government should not be wasting money on buying up cheap tat called art only because it has a thousand pound bill attached.
This is an area where savings could be made, in fact there are lots of areas where savings could be made, but yes, this is one of the more obvious ones. No, this isn't a tilt at modern art either, like with a lot of things, I know what I like and most modern art, particularly that which seeks to make some sort of political point leaves me cold, but there are some pieces I like too. That said, I wouldn't waste my money on any of them nor do I see any reason for the government to waste my money on them either.
Museums and art galleries often have "spare" stuff in storage, the government could request some of that to be displayed in government buildings if they want some new decor.

More about → We're paying for this?

Changing the leopards spots

Throwing money at problems always was a Labour solution, particularly if the problem involved members of a minority or special interest group. They weren't so much as looking for solutions though in my eyes but soundbites and occasionally silencing of the more radical elements of the problem. They did the same with the NHS in their early days but ended up merely bloating the bureaucracy for very little gain, but in the case of security problems caused by radical Islamists, they dispensed with the bureaucracy and simply just threw money at them here and abroad.
All good things come to an end though and it finally looks like the money tree is about to turn over a new leaf and remove funding from the various groups claiming government (taxpayers) money without actually doing something about extremism other than perhaps using the money they got to fund said extremism itself.

BBC.

The government is to publish an updated strategy for tackling extremism and terrorism, on Tuesday afternoon.

The Times newspaper says a review identified serious failings with the existing policy - known as Prevent - set up four years ago.

Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to say some of the £63m annual budget was wasted on overseas projects which have produced no security benefits.

Spending more on countering radicalism in prisons is due to be recommended.

Other recommendations expected include monitoring people convicted of terrorism offences on their release and a renewed focus on the use of the internet, as the government considers a "national blocking list" of violent and unlawful websites.

Prevent was originally launched after the 7 July bombings in 2005 to stop the growth of home-grown terrorism.

A final draft of the new document, to be published in Parliament on Tuesday, was reportedly seen by the Times.

It says it was "possible" Prevent funding had gone to extremist groups promoting hardline beliefs.

Part of the problem though is that the government really don't understand what they are dealing with, they're treating the symptoms, not the disease itself. It's no good trying to deal with violent or extreme Islamists unless you deal with the root of the problem itself which is Islam. These groups are not doing anything new, they are similar in a way to Christian fundamentalists in that they've gone back to a purer more basic form of their religion shorn of the comfort zone of modern civilised values. Whilst the core values of the New Testament are peaceful though, the core values of the Koran and Hadiths are for the most part anything but. I frequently describe Islam as a fascist totalitarian ideology masked in the trappings of a religion, and I'm not exaggerating for effect believe me. The fact that a lot of Muslims are law abiding fairly well adjusted is despite their holy book rather than because of it. Islam in it's purer form is simply incompatible with modern liberal/libertarian values, it does not tolerate freedom of speech, it does not tolerate freedom of thought, it does not tolerate freedom of anything save the rights of Muslims to be Muslims and to hell with the rest of us, we can either convert or live under dhimmi status and pay them protection money on top of any other taxation they want to hit us with and that's on top of rampant misogyny and homophobia.
Yet the review itself states...

"Previous work in this area has made some progress but has not consistently reached the few people who are most susceptible to terrorist propaganda.

"It has failed to recognise the way in which terrorist ideology makes use of ideas espoused by extremist organisations and has not fully understood the implications this should have for the scope for our work.

"It has not effectively engaged with and used the influence and reach of communities and community groups. Previous Prevent work has sometimes given the impression that Muslim communities as a whole are more ‘vulnerable’ to radicalisation than other faith or ethnic groups."

 That's a criticism, yet it's probably the only part of "Prevent" that approached the truth of the matter that Muslims as a whole are more vulnerable because their religion and upbringing within that religion makes them that way.
Radical Christians, Buddhist, Hindu's Jains, Sikhs all cause problems in their own way, but none on the scale of the problems caused by Muslims and Islam. You don't see any others flying planes into buildings, blowing up tube trains and buses, driving cars with gas canisters wrapped in nails and explosives at airport entrances, blowing up disco's or cafe's or cars in Stockholm, (dis)honour killings, blinding or scarring with acid for not wearing a veil, vandalising posters that offend their values, putting up gay free zone stickers, burning poppies etc.
Islam needs to be treat differently because it is different, it's not civilised, though many Muslims are, it breeds fanaticism in a way no other religion does. No other religion says it's ok to kill your enemy, enslave them, rape their women and force them to pay you protection money, every other religion has adapted and improved over the centuries, yet Islam remains the same because it cannot be changed, it's "perfect" according to Muslims at least, though not to anyone who has studied it and its founder who was a pirate, a rapist and a mass murderer who married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9 yet he is a man to be emulated and copied by Muslims.
So in the end the government will throw our money at a problem without realising what the problem is and that it can't be changed, simply removed, like cancer before it becomes fatal.

This article at Harry's Place is well worth a look at too.

More about → Changing the leopards spots

Living high on the hog

They still don't get it and it's looking increasingly unlikely this side of the revolution that they ever will, because there are no consequences really to their actions. I'm talking about various public bodies spending taxpayers cash like it's an inexhaustible fountain, which I suppose to them it really is as no government in recent memory has actually tackled the bastards and made them accountable to both the government and the public. Take the Audit Commission (please) in any ordinary set of circumstances you'd expect the people there to have a tight rein on what they are spending our cash on, after all it's supposed to be their job to keep an eye on what every other government department is spending our cash on.

Telegraph.

Senior figures at the Audit Commission, which polices spending at local authorities, NHS trusts and other government bodies, spent almost £20,000 of public money over the past two years on luxury goods and services.

The body is thought to be the first government organisation to release details of spending on taxpayer-funded credit cards. Thousands of other civil servants also have the cards, which have been used for spending of about £1  billion, leading to warnings of a public funds scandal.

The credit card receipts disclose that Audit Commission executives enjoyed meals costing more than £600 at L’Escargot and Coq d’Argent in London. Hundreds of pounds were also spent at a brasserie owned by Raymond Blanc, the French chef. In total, £11,390 was spent on fine dining in two years.

Executives also made 30 purchases at florists, costing more than £1,300, and also bought goods from HMV and Thorntons, cinema tickets and doughnuts.

The details were released to Eric Ollerenshaw, a Conservative MP, and will be officially disclosed to the House of Commons this week. 

A government insider said that another “MPs’ expenses-style scandal” could emerge if details of credit card expenditure across government were published. Senior mandarins are understood to be privately seeking to block such a release.

The government procurement cards are Visa cards issued by several banks for small office expenditure, including travel. Some Whitehall departments insist that the cards are used for all spending of less than £5,000, which is automatically paid off from public funds.

It really beggars belief at times the profligacy and corruption of taxpayers cash at the top of the public services, if anyone tried that in my company their feet wouldn't even touch the floor as they were kicked out and means set in motion to recoup the money through either civil or criminal courts. Though most expenses wouldn't even be allowed to reach the stage that these troughing pigs have managed, they'd just look at the receipts and say we're not paying that. But in the weird world of the public services such basic safeguards don't seem to have a place in the culture of waste and mismanagement at the top of the tree, though I suspect the junior ranks might just struggle to get a replacement paperclip from the stationary store such would be the paperwork involved.
It will be interesting to see if senior mandarins in the civil service do manage to block the release of credit card expenditure on their Visa government procurement cards after all, they can spend up to £5,000 on them and it's paid off automatically no questions asked, well at least until now, people like Eric Ollerenshaw MP are asking and seem to be trying to get to the bottom of the foetid stink of corruption that emanates from senior civil servants.
Will he succeed? We can hope so. Will heads roll? We can hope so too. What we can be sure of is that the senior mandarins will fight like trapped rats to prevent even a hint of their largesse ever coming to the attention of the public or even MP's if they can help it. It's one of the reasons they have to go, or be strung from the lampposts as and when we get around to them after hanging the MP's and lawyers etc.
It's a long list and it just keeps getting longer and possibly always will at least until they show a lot more respect to the long suffering taxpayer and really start giving value for money.

More about → Living high on the hog

Non Jobs

When it comes to giving value for money, local councils have got to be at the bottom of the pile. Yes I know that some tasks they undertake are required by law whether they like it or not (food hygiene standards for one) but some of the things they get involved with just seem to be excuses to throw council tax payer (and taxpayers via government) cash at to increase their budgets for next year. That's part of the bureaucratic mindset of local authorities not necessarily the councillors, but of the chief executives and their minions down the ranks of the council itself.

Telegraph.

Community Development & Equalities Officer - Tewkesbury; £24,646 to £26,276

Healthy walks co-ordinator - Forest of Dean; £14,733 to £15,444

Project support worker (Voice of My Own) - Scottish Borders, £19,024.64 to £21,135.84 pro rata (fixed term contract)

Family Lifestyles Officer - Rugby; £19,126 to £21,519 pro rata

Active villages co-ordinator - Teignbridge, £10,228;

Life Skills and Positive Activities Officer - Ryedale; £19,000 to £21,500 pro rata (fixed term contract)

Workplace travel plan coordinator - Havant; £20,198 to £22,221, part time, pro rata (fixed term contract)

Gypsy Romany Traveller Community Cohesion Officer - Herefordshire, £22,221 to £26,276

New media improvement assistant - Perth and Kinross; £16,086 to £17,587

Woodfuel development officer - West Sussex; £32,800 to £35,430  

Nice work if you can get it, but probably not something councils should be involved with and certainly areas in which savings could be made. You can practically be certain though that the jobs that will go are the ones of most value to the public, bin-men, nurses, policemen, road and street light repair crews. I very much doubt looking at that lot that the diversity co-ordinator brigades are quaking in their boots with the thought of impending redundancy because if they can still advertise for those types of jobs then the government clearly isn't getting to grips with waste spending. Though I am coming to the conclusion that the government isn't really in control of anything anymore and that civil servants at local and national levels are running rings around them and thwarting any attempts to rein in the bureaucracy. Perhaps the government should have opted for lopping off the top 3 layers of the civil service in all departments, oh I'm sure there would be screams about how much experience we'd be losing, but frankly I suspect it would actually improve things by allowing things to get done rather than obstructed. Certainly put the fear of God into the rest of them.
It's time and past time that the bureaucracy was trimmed in this country and the non jobs removed, but as with most governments, I'll not hold my breath on the chances of it ever happening if only because there's no incentive amongst the bureaucrats and ministers to actually do something about it.

More about → Non Jobs

Blackout

The Health and safety lobby are about to clash with the recession, in that a lot of councils have decided to switch their street lights off after midnight to save money. Cue, strong language about the probable carnage on our streets etc, etc.

Express.

FATAL road crashes will soar as cash-strapped councils switch of street lights to save cash during the dark winter months, safety experts warn.

Thousands of miles of roads and motorways are to be plunged into ­darkness as town hall chiefs reign back their spending – hit hard by the ­coalition’s cutbacks.

So far, 36 councils are to implement a “black out” on roads during the early hours of the morning. Others are dimming lights to save electricity costs. 

The Highways Agency also plans to turn off lights on some stretches of motorway from midnight to 5am.

Critics yesterday slammed the money-saving measures, claiming dark roads, coupled with the harsh winter weather, could spell disaster.

The AA said: “Statistics show that more people are killed or seriously injured in the dark, so switching off street lighting at any time of day has safety implications and accidents could potentially increase as a result.

“Councils must monitor the impact of the scheme and be prepared to switch the lights back on if there are any changes to accident trends.”

A survey by ­Halfords found 1.9 per cent of road accidents on major roads are fatal where there are no lights, compared with 1.3 where lights are on. On smaller roads the figures are 4.9 per cent for dark roads, compared with 3.1 per cent when the lights are bright.

The switch off comes as the clocks went back an hour yesterday plunging Britain into evening darkness.

Yes, I suppose there's a chance of more accidents, however it's not like they are planning to switch them off at 6 pm is it? One of the strange things you notice when driving about at midnight should you have too is how few people there are about and how few cars there are. You also notice that your car has lights and that they illuminate the road in front of you. Certainly there is an increases danger, but I don't believe for a second that it's going to be anywhere near as bad as the health and safety experts say, after all these are the guys who hammered on for years about speed cameras making roads safer only for Swindon Council to prove that no they don't.
By all means switch the lights off after midnight, switch them off totally on motorways too, save at junctions. They aren't needed particularly, an exception could be made on New Years Eve I guess, but again people would manage,

Would be nice to get rid of some of the light pollution over this country and give people a chance to look at the stars again.

More about → Blackout

Not real money

Whitehall waste is in the news (again) as Sir Philip Green owner of Topshop and Bhs who was tasked by Cameron to check on government department spending made his initial report. The report surprised no-one by stating that "staggering" amounts of money could be saved by renegotiating contracts and monitoring outgoings, even to the point of video-conferencing rather than booking hotels for face to face meetings.

Telegraph.

The billionaire owner of Topshop and Bhs found that the Government could save hundreds of millions of pounds if it renegotiated contracts with mobile phone and stationery suppliers.

Sir Philip said ministers could cut swathes of waste from public services after uncovering a “staggering” waste of money. 

He said that the Government’s buying practices were “appalling” and that central Government would be “bankrupt” if it was a standalone business.

The retail chief was asked by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, to carry out an external efficiency review of Whitehall departments in August.

In one example he found 138,000 civil servants were able to spend up to £1,000 a month on special procurement cards with little accountability.

He said: “People are allowed to spend up to £1,000 on stationery, travel or whatever from their normal suppliers.

“There is £1billion spent on that card. Is it spent efficiently? Respectfully, it can’t be because there will be a variation of prices that are getting paid.” 

Sir Philip found that taxpayers paid for 400,000 hotel nights in London last year, costing £38 million.

The prices of the rooms ranged from £77 to £117. “Have they not heard of video conferencing? It is just unacceptable,” he said.

Sir Philip highlighted details of un-coordinated spending, with departments paying wildly different amounts for the same services.

In one instance a department was paying £1.31 a leaflet, compared with a market price of 26p - an 80 per cent difference.

In another, departments were paying anything between £8 and £73 for a box of paper and between £86 and £396 for printer cartridges.

The report revealed that the price of a cup of coffee ranged from £1.45 to 90p, a 38 per cent difference, across Whitehall.

One of the biggest areas where savings could be made was fixed line telecoms, which costs the Government £2 billion a year.

Sir Philip estimated that this could be 30 per cent to 40 per cent cheaper and called for an urgent review of costs.

The annual cost of 105,000 mobile phones, mostly with one provider, was £21million Sir Phillip said it was “inefficient”.

The prices paid for its laptops varied from £353 to £2,000. Sir Philip said that one of his team found the same laptops online for £800.

There are no real surprises there, the civil service have always been fairly crap at awarding contracts and dealing with costs because at the end of the day their "company" can't go bust and they lose their jobs. That's the wonder of the taxpayer funding, until now and FOI requests they've been pretty much able to hide their excesses from the public gaze and just trough away at our expense. Now they are in the spotlight and it doesn't make for a pretty sight. The sheer waste as well as the dodgy practices are unacceptable even in times of economic growth, never mind austerity as Sir Philip said, "central Government would be “bankrupt” if it was a standalone business"
At the end you got the usual Labour spokesweasel claiming they'd been making efficiency cuts, but wanted more details and "fairness" which is the usual gobbledygook phrasing from the bunch that allowed such largesse to carry on under their regime. Fact is, they did it with our taxes and spent a fortune mostly unchecked by a decent audit/accounts dept, because they knew they could, there were never to be any comebacks as the taxpayer fountain would never run out and they probably still believe deep down, it never will.

More about → Not real money