Government Spending Survey
Comments
-
If you added up all of the things that civil servants are doing which don't need doing, and all of the things that aren't getting done, would there need to be any redundancies?
Gordon Brown would have had a Doing-Don't-Done Review, which would report back in Januray 2011, and then created a Minitry of Needs Doing Reallocation to get done what needs doing by the doing what doesn't need doing civil servants. By 2015, there would be an undercover new story about innocent civil servants who are doing things that need doing being hounded into Need Doing Reallocation people, to do things which don't really need doing.
So he'd have a Don't Need Doing Doing Needs Done Don't Review.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:If you added up all of the things that civil servants are doing which don't need doing, and all of the things that aren't getting done, would there need to be any redundancies?
Gordon Brown would have had a Doing-Don't-Done Review, which would report back in Januray 2011, and then created a Minitry of Needs Doing Reallocation to get done what needs doing by the doing what doesn't need doing civil servants. By 2015, there would be an undercover new story about innocent civil servants who are doing things that need doing being hounded into Need Doing Reallocation people, to do things which don't really need doing.
So he'd have a Don't Need Doing Doing Needs Done Don't Review.
I'm sure they will soon commission a study to assess the usefulness of doing such a study. Or, a study to assess the usefulness of doing a study to assess the usefulness of doing a study.
I've gone cross-eyed.0 -
And they'd conclude that you need Doing Things Targets. But in order to meet the Doing Things Targets, they'd end up doing things that need done, but not urgently, at the expense of things that urgently need doing. Of course, to sort this sort of mess out, you need a chief exec, and the going rate is £120k + bonus.lost_in_thought wrote:Always Tyred wrote:If you added up all of the things that civil servants are doing which don't need doing, and all of the things that aren't getting done, would there need to be any redundancies?
Gordon Brown would have had a Doing-Don't-Done Review, which would report back in Januray 2011, and then created a Minitry of Needs Doing Reallocation to get done what needs doing by the doing what doesn't need doing civil servants. By 2015, there would be an undercover new story about innocent civil servants who are doing things that need doing being hounded into Need Doing Reallocation people, to do things which don't really need doing.
So he'd have a Don't Need Doing Doing Needs Done Don't Review.
I'm sure they will soon commission a study to assess the usefulness of doing such a study. Or, a study to assess the usefulness of doing a study to assess the usefulness of doing a study.
I've gone cross-eyed.0 -
re-cycles wrote:
I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!lardboy wrote:mostly around compulsory insurance/licensing/taxing.
If anyone feels so inclined, or even just fancies a bit of an internet argument with an anti-cycling numpty,
Nothing to stop you getting third party insurance for yourself. It's also included in the membership of most cycling groups and organizations.
Car drivers have to be insured (and the premiums are high) because cars can cause a lot of damage. Cyclists don't have to be, and the premiums are low for those who choose to be, because bikes do not have such a potential to destroy life and property.
Anything that regulates bicycle use would cost more to implement than it would raise and would reduce cycle use at a time when there are only advantages in increasing it.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
A few folks seem quick to jump on my comments, so I'll try to answer the points raised here....
Pedestrians don't pay tax or have insurance, so why should cyclists? Pedestrians are not making use of a mechanical advantage, cyclists are.
A "tax" would cost more than it would gain in revenue. Of course it would! No one mentioned this as a profit making scheme for the government. It was purely suggested to provide a level of accountability and a way of monitoring the ownership of the bikes.
I could get 3rd party insurance. I have insurance specifically for my bike rather than relying on the contents insurance with its many clauses.
I vote Labour. Oh how I chuckled, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried!
0 -
My life is regulated enough. There are an ample sufficiency of things that I can or can't do according to the whims of a meddlesome Govt. Cycling does not need to be sunk in a sea of legislation. Let it be and let us have a few things that we can do without the State subjecting them to unnecessary controls.This post contains traces of nuts.0
-
Children on push along scooters, roller skaters, roller bladers? All require insurance then?re-cycles wrote:A few folks seem quick to jump on my comments, so I'll try to answer the points raised here....
Pedestrians don't pay tax or have insurance, so why should cyclists? Pedestrians are not making use of a mechanical advantage, cyclists are.
What about horse riders?
Oh goody - the country is awash with cash to splash out.
A "tax" would cost more than it would gain in revenue. Of course it would! No one mentioned this as a profit making scheme for the government. It was purely suggested to provide a level of accountability and a way of monitoring the ownership of the bikes.
How to make cycvlists more unpopular - introduce a scheme that costs morte money than it raises and thus requires government to subsidise it at the same time as cutting health, education etc
I could get 3rd party insurance. I have insurance specifically for my bike rather than relying on the contents insurance with its many clauses.
I vote Labour. Oh how I chuckled, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried!Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Let's cut the crap out of this though, and boil it down to what it really consists of:
i) Restriction
ii) Control
You see someone else doing something and enjoying it, and you're the type of person that wants a slice of the cake/wants to stop them.
You also appear to be the sort of person that won't answer questions about exactly how your brilliant helpful scheme will be brilliant and helpful, but meh.0 -
What about Mrs Miggins aged 102 using her shopping trolley to help her get to / from the shops for her loaf of bread and paper. She is "making use of a mechanical advantage" whilst using it to help her propel herself and or carry her shoppingre-cycles wrote:A few folks seem quick to jump on my comments, so I'll try to answer the points raised here....
Pedestrians don't pay tax or have insurance, so why should cyclists? Pedestrians are not making use of a mechanical advantage, cyclists are. ....:
Fred the gardener- he uses his wheel barrow to transport the garden waste to his truck. He is "making use of a mechanical advantage" as he pushes hi wheel barrow allong the street to his truck. Better get him taxed and licenced and insured for this
Little Suzy aged 3 pushing her dollies in her pram?
The parent pushing their children in prams or pushchairs - all are "making use of a mechanical advantage"
A well thought out ideaWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Posting in error FAIL0
-
What about Space Hoppers? Should a pneumatic advantage be taxed?spen666 wrote:
What about Mrs Miggins aged 102 using her shopping trolley to help her get to / from the shops for her loaf of bread and paper. She is "making use of a mechanical advantage" whilst using it to help her propel herself and or carry her shoppingre-cycles wrote:A few folks seem quick to jump on my comments, so I'll try to answer the points raised here....
Pedestrians don't pay tax or have insurance, so why should cyclists? Pedestrians are not making use of a mechanical advantage, cyclists are. ....:
Fred the gardener- he uses his wheel barrow to transport the garden waste to his truck. He is "making use of a mechanical advantage" as he pushes hi wheel barrow allong the street to his truck. Better get him taxed and licenced and insured for this
Little Suzy aged 3 pushing her dollies in her pram?
The parent pushing their children in prams or pushchairs - all are "making use of a mechanical advantage"
A well thought out idea0 -
roller skates should be taxed - and pogo-sticks!
I shall start printing up the leaflets immediately.0 -
Asprilla wrote:spen666 wrote:Little Suzy aged 3 pushing her dollies in her pram?
I thought she'd got a Giant road bike now?
No, its an Islabike, but its not adapted to carry more than one personWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Porgy wrote:
Is she still threatening to XXXX you behind the bike shed?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
:? How is a sticker on your bike going to restrict you using it?zanes wrote:Let's cut the crap out of this though, and boil it down to what it really consists of:
i) Restriction
ii) Control
You see someone else doing something and enjoying it, and you're the type of person that wants a slice of the cake/wants to stop them.
You also appear to be the sort of person that won't answer questions about exactly how your brilliant helpful scheme will be brilliant and helpful, but meh.
I haven't suggested anyone being stopped from doing anything, and I've already said that under current rulings the registration of a bike would be free, so not sure how I'm viewed as wanting "a slice of the cake" or wanting to "stop them".
Finally, I think you've misread something along the way... Its not my scheme, I just pointed out I'd be happy if a scheme was introduced. I've based my thoughts on the current system of registration and insurance as used by by other road users. I'm not a politician and have no intentions of becoming one, so working out how a policy would be introduced or work isn't something I have to concern myself with.0 -
schweiz wrote:CHF 2,000,000 is worth having.
I believe something like 20% of the cost is for admin.
I can't find the source of that figure. However that's not the point. What's the point of liability insurance if it can't be claimed?
The reason the Swiss are thinking of canning it is obviously the pointlessness of it, and the fact that you get this insurance for something that isn't being claimed anyway.0 -
davmaggs wrote:schweiz wrote:CHF 2,000,000 is worth having.
I believe something like 20% of the cost is for admin.
I can't find the source of that figure. However that's not the point. What's the point of liability insurance if it can't be claimed?
The reason the Swiss are thinking of canning it is obviously the pointlessness of it, and the fact that you get this insurance for something that isn't being claimed anyway.
Where do you get the idea it can't be claimed? If I cause an accident that causes a car to swerve into a bus stop, injuring the people waiting for a bus then there will be a hefty claim coming my way and I like the fact that I have insurance protecting me, all for a couple of quid a year...if that... my old employer used to give me a vignette free for taking part in the annual 'bike to work' in June, and the LBS may even give a a vignette for free if you have a service done in Spring.
The 20% figure is in the Wikipedia entry I posted earlier
from the original entry in German:
dass rund 20 % der Versicherungsprämie für die Administration verwendet würden.
rough translation:
Around 20% of the Insurance Premium is used for Administration
(edit) due to the fact that the Swiss have a direct democracy and just about everything goes to referendum, there's always something that may get approved or canned in the news. At least the people can decide what they want rather than being told what to do. If the majority of the voting population that care to vote want to keep the vignette, they will. If not, they won't0 -
re-cycles wrote:[
Finally, I think you've misread something along the way... Its not my scheme, I just pointed out I'd be happy if a scheme was introduced. I've based my thoughts on the current system of registration and insurance as used by by other road users. I'm not a politician and have no intentions of becoming one, so working out how a policy would be introduced or work isn't something I have to concern myself with.
You'll be pleased to know there's already a registration scheme for bikes.
Your bike has a frame number, so make a note of it. The police recommend Immobilise http://www.immobilise.com/ as the place to register that number.0 -
schweiz wrote:davmaggs wrote:schweiz wrote:CHF 2,000,000 is worth having.
I believe something like 20% of the cost is for admin.
I can't find the source of that figure. However that's not the point. What's the point of liability insurance if it can't be claimed?
The reason the Swiss are thinking of canning it is obviously the pointlessness of it, and the fact that you get this insurance for something that isn't being claimed anyway.
Where do you get the idea it can't be claimed? If I cause an accident that causes a car to swerve into a bus stop, injuring the people waiting for a bus then there will be a hefty claim coming my way and I like the fact that I have insurance protecting me, all for a couple of quid a year...if that... my old employer used to give me a vignette free for taking part in the annual 'bike to work' in June, and the LBS may even give a a vignette for free if you have a service done in Spring.
The 20% figure is in the Wikipedia entry I posted earlier
from the original entry in German:
dass rund 20 % der Versicherungsprämie für die Administration verwendet würden.
rough translation:
Around 20% of the Insurance Premium is used for Administration
(edit) due to the fact that the Swiss have a direct democracy and just about everything goes to referendum, there's always something that may get approved or canned in the news. At least the people can decide what they want rather than being told what to do. If the majority of the voting population that care to vote want to keep the vignette, they will. If not, they won't
The UK has a population of over 60 million and a rabid tabloid press that looks for interesting stories, and many enjoy a dig at cyclist. Yet, I'm not seeing the stories about cyclists causing entire bus stops full of people to be wiped out. Indeed, I'm yet to see a story about a cyclist being sued (and those selling the insurance would happily publicise that).
My point is that you may well have 2 million francs of insurance, but how much does that fund actually pay out each year? I suspect claims aren't really being made and the premiums are simply pocketed.
If you want insurance for something that isn't needed then carry on, but why not leave everyone else the freedom to decide themselves?0 -
spen666 wrote:
It was fun at first - but now I just want her to stop!! :shock:0 -
schweiz wrote:davmaggs wrote:schweiz wrote:CHF 2,000,000 is worth having.
I believe something like 20% of the cost is for admin.
I can't find the source of that figure. However that's not the point. What's the point of liability insurance if it can't be claimed?
The reason the Swiss are thinking of canning it is obviously the pointlessness of it, and the fact that you get this insurance for something that isn't being claimed anyway.
Where do you get the idea it can't be claimed? If I cause an accident that causes a car to swerve into a bus stop, injuring the people waiting for a bus then there will be a hefty claim coming my way and I like the fact that I have insurance protecting me, all for a couple of quid a year..
That would be the motorist's fault, for not driving more carefully past the bus stop.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
Re this idea of compulsory insurance for bikes or cyclists ( not sure which is being proposed)
Would those who support this idea explain why they think insurance of bikes/ cyclists should be compulsory, when it is not for motorists.
Don't believe me then check S143 of the RTA 1988 - the section dealing with requirements regarding insurance.
Bizarre fact it may be, but it is trueWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
spen666 wrote:Re this idea of compulsory insurance for bikes or cyclists ( not sure which is being proposed)
Would those who support this idea explain why they think insurance of bikes/ cyclists should be compulsory, when it is not for motorists.
Don't believe me then check S143 of the RTA 1988 - the section dealing with requirements regarding insurance.
Bizarre fact it may be, but it is true
:? Not sure how you work that one out...(a)
a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b)
a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)
that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)
that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)
that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) This Part of this Act does not apply to invalid carriages.0 -
re-cycles wrote:spen666 wrote:Re this idea of compulsory insurance for bikes or cyclists ( not sure which is being proposed)
Would those who support this idea explain why they think insurance of bikes/ cyclists should be compulsory, when it is not for motorists.
Don't believe me then check S143 of the RTA 1988 - the section dealing with requirements regarding insurance.
Bizarre fact it may be, but it is true
:? Not sure how you work that one out...(a)
a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b)
a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)
that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)
that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)
that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) This Part of this Act does not apply to invalid carriages.
Well if you read ( and comprehend) what you have posted the answer is there in black and white for you.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
bails87 wrote:So is it the 'on a road' part or the 'such a security in respect of third party risks' part?
Or can't you tell us for fear of putting lawyers out of jobs?
The latter - you can leave a form of bond at court to pay for your potential claims.
EDIT - scanning the thread, a few things are obvious:
Peds can cause accidents - so they should also rightly be insured, registered etc;
A free registration system? With all the spare money floating about?
There is little point proposing an idea without proposing a realistic form of implementing it.0 -
I was looking this point up before posting, and its frightening how many vehicles are on the road without needing insurance. Pretty much all government and local govt vehicles as well as things like NHS trust vehicles are exempt.
Effectively the Government are self insuring, so you would still get compensation in event of an accidentWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660
This discussion has been closed.
