Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As much a sign of spring as the flowering of the Melbourne Grove cherry trees, the council's 'preferred' contractor Conway has been busy spending its unspent budget in the last few days of the financial year. Yesterday, without warning, they started digging up the pavement on Trossachs Road and replacing it with an inch or two of tarmac. It's unfinished, so anyone with a wheelchair or access problems would have been stranded. Much as it's nice to have a new pavement, in this era of austerity I'd have happily foregone a new pavement for a few years yet. But then again, Conway are clearly more powerful than, say, youth services when it comes to grabbing the cash.

To be fair, and much as I dislike Conway, anything left in the budget and not spent by the end of the financial year is lost for ever.


So it won't just be Conway desperately finding things to spend it on.


Lack of forward planning I agree, but it was always thus :)

Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Common myth.


Really?


When I used to work for a public sector employer, many moons ago when I actually had a budget, I had to use it by the end of the financial year or it was lost.


And so did others.


Not only that, but as BNG implies above, if you did not use all your budget it was assumed that you had too much and it was cut back in the following year.


Have things changed, then?

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Common myth.

>

> Really?

>

> When I used to work for a public sector employer,

> many moons ago when I actually had a budget, I

> had to use it by the end of the financial year or

> it was lost.

>

> And so did others.

>

> Not only that, but as BNG implies above, if you

> did not use all your budget it was assumed that

> you had too much and it was cut back in the

> following year.

>

> Have things changed, then?


Yes. I work for southwark and this is not the case. Years ago it was but not now.

Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Common myth.

> >

> > Really?

> >

> > When I used to work for a public sector

> employer,

> > many moons ago when I actually had a budget, I

> > had to use it by the end of the financial year

> or

> > it was lost.

> >

> > And so did others.

> >

> > Not only that, but as BNG implies above, if you

> > did not use all your budget it was assumed that

> > you had too much and it was cut back in the

> > following year.

> >

> > Have things changed, then?

>

> Yes. I work for southwark and this is not the

> case. Years ago it was but not now.



Ah, OK.


I'm talking circa 1990 :))

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't believe budget allocations for Southwark

> COuncil highways renewals would be lost if it

> rolled over into a new financial year.


I don't think was the question. The question was whether Conway is working to a budget, and whether underspends to that would result in cuts to their budget. It's a subtle difference, but while we're not allowed to know exactly how our money is spent, it's an important one. Not least because it allows for the possiblity of contractors being able to uplift their profits without a suitably scrutinized civic justification.


Obviously, commercial confidentiality is important (though nobody has yet been able to explain why) and thus it's entirely reasonable to expect not to be able to know what the exact terms of Conways contract are. However, it is reasonable to know what the basis of the contract is, including whether it's cost, cost-plus, fixed budget or related to one or more variables, at least in the most general form. And whether that would mean they'd have an incentive to scuttle about inventing speed humps (or persuading their contacts to invent them) toward the end of the financial year.


I mention this simply because we live in a world where council tax can be frozen, yet council tax bills still go up. The use of a precept to pay for what we were already paying for, as not-quite made clear in the touching Urbi et Orbi from Peter Johns that slithered onto our mats, bundled up with the bill, is a well-worn wheeze, but still a wheeze. Its only purpose, for all the flannel about protecting bits of budgets, is to make something look like it's something that it isn't.


And, with all due respect, if that's what our councillors are spending their time on, then it's easy for them to find themselves serving the council's needs, rather than those of residents, and so might easily be persuaded to overlook the very subtle difference between, say, a council's budget and that of a contractor.

Well let's use it wisely and get some more speed bumps and narrow those roads! With a bit of luck we can get people out of those cars once and for all! London is a village after all so everyone should be walking!


Surely someone at Southwark Council or TFL has "good relationships" (ahem) with Conway and can get them to help us spend this money!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...