It is not in any government's interest to clampdown on such wastage and expenditure as the more money spent the more tax, VAT indirect and direct they'll receive and it must add up significantly.
Probably also the ludicrous and self-perpetuating culture of having to justify increased annual budget requests so spend over the odds to demonstrate the need for next year's budget.
Really piss poor but unless the media and public get a hold of it like with the MP's expenses then it'll likely continue.
Given the fact that we've arrived at a point of effectively, and collectively shrugging off 50,000 Covid deaths (many of which may have been avoidable), failed test and trace, garden bridges, contracts for mates etc then I won't hold my breath for any reform.
We've become resigned to accepting piss poor governance and lack of accountability and distracted by having a pop at each other over very trivial things. Also many are so entrenched in allegiance to left or right/ red or blue that they will not condemn shithousery behaviour from their side regardless of how blatant it may be.
Silly
Hence all the holes that mysteriously appear in our roads come February/March with Conway/Cadant/Thames water sat next to them watching the world go by.
Always seems to be Conway round our way ... they must win every tender
Thought I should provide some context on some of the comment on the way councils operate.
A couple of years ago I worked as a procurement specialist for a Tory run County Council. All the work I handled was for repairs to public buildings and some new build. All work was put out to tender through frameworks, with Contractors who had passed certain checks when the framework was established.
The contractors were from a variety of locations (local and national) and varied from small to medium and large. For each item of work the award criteria was clearly laid out for contractors, and marked by a panel. Final decisions went through a few committee stages for checks by individuals different from those on the original panel. Each contractor was given feed back on why they weren't awarded the work, or why they were.
I've worked in both central government and private sector in similar roles, and this was the most equitable and tightest process I've come across. Too process driven for me at times, but with hindsight it ensured effective procurement that eliminated potential fraud.
This.
With the best will in the World @blackpool72 you cannot just allow Sid and Bert down the road to carry out Public Works just because they knock off 10% for cash.
The amount of hoops Contractors have to go through - including becoming members of specific organisations like Trustmark, FMB, EBC and other approved bodies - along with signing up to specific quality, diversity, data protection and more recently modern anti slavery, is the sort of thing most small construction businesses really don't want to bother with.
All public works over $5.35m have to be advertised through OJEU for example. Much to my horror one of my refurbishment contracts was won by a French Company (who actually performed very well).
Thought I should provide some context on some of the comment on the way councils operate.
A couple of years ago I worked as a procurement specialist for a Tory run County Council. All the work I handled was for repairs to public buildings and some new build. All work was put out to tender through frameworks, with Contractors who had passed certain checks when the framework was established.
The contractors were from a variety of locations (local and national) and varied from small to medium and large. For each item of work the award criteria was clearly laid out for contractors, and marked by a panel. Final decisions went through a few committee stages for checks by individuals different from those on the original panel. Each contractor was given feed back on why they weren't awarded the work, or why they were.
I've worked in both central government and private sector in similar roles, and this was the most equitable and tightest process I've come across. Too process driven for me at times, but with hindsight it ensured effective procurement that eliminated potential fraud.
This.
With the best will in the World @blackpool72 you cannot just allow Sid and Bert down the road to carry out Public Works just because they knock off 10% for cash.
The amount of hoops Contractors have to go through - including becoming members of specific organisations like Trustmark, FMB, EBC and other approved bodies - along with signing up to specific quality, diversity, data protection and more recently modern anti slavery, is the sort of thing most small construction businesses really don't want to bother with.
All public works over $5.35m have to be advertised through OJEU for example. Much to my horror one of my refurbishment contracts was won by a French Company (who actually performed very well).
I fully understand where you are coming from. But. Some of the prices paid are absolutely outrageous. One fire station I worked at ,and it wasn't that big.the cost of having the inside painted was 37k. Another Fire station paid in excess of 50k to be double glazed. A minimum charge for any job was £200.which we paid to have 4 hooks put up. 18k to have a small downstairs toilet refurbished ( two toilets ,two hand basins and a bit of tiling. The list is endless.
While I agree that you can't let any old Tom Dick or Harry do there jobs when you concider there are 112 fire stations in London the amount of money that could be saved is in the millions every year. I genuinely believe that the amount of firms allowed to quote for these jobs should be increased ten fold to get better value for money. And that's just fire stations. When you also include all police building's all NHS establishments ,council buildings etc etc the amount of money that could and should be saved is mindbogling.
1. The guys who rented office space from my mate had contracts with around 4 London boroughs for maintenance work on council buildings. They on a regular basis visited the facilities guys with brown envelopes. 2. The approved contractors for Lewisham Schools was a cartel, one even admitted it to me after I questioned his quote for a small repair to a flat roof, should have been sub £2k but was nearly 20k (we had 3 quotes between 18 & 22k).
I was so incensed on number 2. And what he had to say I downloaded all his accounts. This was a sole trader who only worked for Lewisham schools, who mostly subbed out work. Previous years accounts showed a profit of....... £400k .......
when I took this up with Lewisham and arguments ensued we became the only school in Lewisham unofficially allowed to use our own contractors for work sub £100k. Wonder why that was......
I have let literally thousands of public work contracts - from £300 to £13m.
I've never once been offered a bung and any hospitality stopped in about 2010. The one thing I always did well at though was a bottle of booze at Christmas, especially as I worked with so many Contractors, but from 2010 these went into a central raffle for all staff.
Bloody annoying seeing the bottle of Hennessy VS given to you being won by a Senior Manager in HR.
Inside Croydon's reporting on Croydon over the years has been brilliant and has savaged both the current Labour administration and the Tories that ran the council before them. The guy that runs it has had a lot of stick over the years, but he's finally been vindicated. It's his stuff that gets picked up by Private Eye, whose Rotten Boroughs column is worth the cover price alone.
Everyone is convinced it's all about brown envelopes. I don't doubt it happens, but I think the problem's more basic.
There are a lot of similarities between Croydon and Greenwich until about 6 years ago. (Two years ago, to an extent.) An over-powerful, unaccountable council leader and planning meetings where developments aren't challenged because councillors are scared of recriminations if they speak out. The difference is that Greenwich was very good at squirrelling away money for pet projects; while Croydon pissed it away.
The key problem is too many councillors have very safe seats and are a) either thick as shit, b) just in it for the allowances, or c) unable to call out corruption/bad behaviour because too many of their colleagues are in the first two categories.
Most backbench councillors have no power whatsoever (thanks to reforms brought in by Blair 20 years back) - while there are many that are diligent and honest and champion their residents; there are others that take their £10k allowance and do the bare minimum. That's no different to any workplace, of course, but the current system allows tinpot bullies to rise to the top - you don't become a councillor if you value your mental health.
Add to that the lack of media scrutiny - local papers have largely stopped covering council unless someone else (ie, the BBC) pays for it, particularly in London - and you have a big problem. There'll be more Croydons to come, and they'll keep coming because neither party is interested in clearing out their own stables.
Comments
With the best will in the World @blackpool72 you cannot just allow Sid and Bert down the road to carry out Public Works just because they knock off 10% for cash.
The amount of hoops Contractors have to go through - including becoming members of specific organisations like Trustmark, FMB, EBC and other approved bodies - along with signing up to specific quality, diversity, data protection and more recently modern anti slavery, is the sort of thing most small construction businesses really don't want to bother with.
All public works over $5.35m have to be advertised through OJEU for example. Much to my horror one of my refurbishment contracts was won by a French Company (who actually performed very well).
But.
Some of the prices paid are absolutely outrageous.
One fire station I worked at ,and it wasn't that big.the cost of having the inside painted was 37k.
Another Fire station paid in excess of 50k to be double glazed.
A minimum charge for any job was £200.which we paid to have 4 hooks put up.
18k to have a small downstairs toilet refurbished ( two toilets ,two hand basins and a bit of tiling.
The list is endless.
While I agree that you can't let any old Tom Dick or Harry do there jobs when you concider there are 112 fire stations in London the amount of money that could be saved is in the millions every year.
I genuinely believe that the amount of firms allowed to quote for these jobs should be increased ten fold to get better value for money.
And that's just fire stations.
When you also include all police building's all NHS establishments ,council buildings etc etc the amount of money that could and should be saved is mindbogling.
1. The guys who rented office space from my mate had contracts with around 4 London boroughs for maintenance work on council buildings. They on a regular basis visited the facilities guys with brown envelopes.
2. The approved contractors for Lewisham Schools was a cartel, one even admitted it to me after I questioned his quote for a small repair to a flat roof, should have been sub £2k but was nearly 20k (we had 3 quotes between 18 & 22k).
I was so incensed on number 2. And what he had to say I downloaded all his accounts. This was a sole trader who only worked for Lewisham schools, who mostly subbed out work. Previous years accounts showed a profit of....... £400k .......
when I took this up with Lewisham and arguments ensued we became the only school in Lewisham unofficially allowed to use our own contractors for work sub £100k. Wonder why that was......
I've never once been offered a bung and any hospitality stopped in about 2010. The one thing I always did well at though was a bottle of booze at Christmas, especially as I worked with so many Contractors, but from 2010 these went into a central raffle for all staff.
Bloody annoying seeing the bottle of Hennessy VS given to you being won by a Senior Manager in HR.
Everyone is convinced it's all about brown envelopes. I don't doubt it happens, but I think the problem's more basic.
There are a lot of similarities between Croydon and Greenwich until about 6 years ago. (Two years ago, to an extent.) An over-powerful, unaccountable council leader and planning meetings where developments aren't challenged because councillors are scared of recriminations if they speak out. The difference is that Greenwich was very good at squirrelling away money for pet projects; while Croydon pissed it away.
The key problem is too many councillors have very safe seats and are a) either thick as shit, b) just in it for the allowances, or c) unable to call out corruption/bad behaviour because too many of their colleagues are in the first two categories.
Most backbench councillors have no power whatsoever (thanks to reforms brought in by Blair 20 years back) - while there are many that are diligent and honest and champion their residents; there are others that take their £10k allowance and do the bare minimum. That's no different to any workplace, of course, but the current system allows tinpot bullies to rise to the top - you don't become a councillor if you value your mental health.
Add to that the lack of media scrutiny - local papers have largely stopped covering council unless someone else (ie, the BBC) pays for it, particularly in London - and you have a big problem. There'll be more Croydons to come, and they'll keep coming because neither party is interested in clearing out their own stables.