3 ms·

I came here to write this but am quite surprised that other people don't agree with it and downvoted you. These agencies aren't paid from our tax money to produ

by bananas 12y ago

I came here to write this but am quite surprised that other people don't agree with it and downvoted you. These agencies aren't paid from our tax money to produce toys - they are there to provide a cost efficient service where possible. I have the same worries about the entire gov.uk rework. Neat hack yes, but this is government, not private enterprise or personal time. In the UK we almost called for the hanging of an MP who bought a duck house on expenses and I'm sure these "neat hacks" over time have cost a lot more.

zimpenfish 12y ago
If you go down the "government should be cost efficient" route, you end up with things like [/PPI/] which, whilst making the government more cost efficient, has thoroughly damaged many vital UK services. Edit: By PPI, I meant PPP/PFI. I conflated the two into one incorrect abbreviation. Apologies.
- arethuza 12y ago
  Indeed, I can imagine if every small bit of work had to have a full analysis of ROI etc. then the whole bureaucracy intended to prevent the wasting of money would end us costing far more than could ever be saved. If the Ordnance Survey want to do even more cool stuff with a tiny bit of my taxpayers money then they have my blessing.
- lmm 12y ago
  What are you talking about? PPI was a private-industry thing. PPP is regarded as a failure partly because it damaged service provision but mostly because it didn't actually save money.
  - zimpenfish 12y ago
    You're right - I've conflated PPP and PFI in my brain there. Apologies.
- bananas 12y ago
  That's total horse shit. PPP was not about government efficiency not has it improved efficiency. PPP was about trading a short immediate cost (infrastructure build) against a long one (rent). It was a cash flow measure to knock as much deficit on the head up front and reduce unemployment. This was purely a political measure for the government to "not look as shit". Of course in the long term it's a shitty deal for citizens, lots of political cash back-handers were taken and we've now got long-term rents to pay and stuck with low grade contract outfits. But that's what happens when you put capitalism and socialism in the same pot and stir it.
  - zimpenfish 12y ago
    If it's reduced governmental cash outlay in the short term, is that not more "cost efficient"?
    - bananas 12y ago
      Because we're throwing a pile of cash away on fighting foreign wars we can't win and killing people rather than abolishing PPP and concentrating on looking after all the sick people at home.
fetbaffe 12y ago
I usually get down voted here, so no surprise. Sweden made a virtual embassy in Second Life. It's closed now. Just money down the drain. http://secondhouseofsweden.com/ http://secondhouseofsweden.com/ Politicians have really hard time these days to put tax payer money where they should go, education, health care, law enforcement.
- mnsc 12y ago
  So tax money shouldn't fund fire departments?
  - fetbaffe 12y ago
    Who are you asking?
- bananas 12y ago
  My point entirely!
schrijver 12y ago
In your other comment you call this a ’hack and a PR thing’ and it is exactly that: a neat hack to draw attention to the fact that the government is now publishing this data-set as free data. I think it’s great the government publishes this free data (given as it is was probably collected using tax money), and I also think it’s great they do a project to attract attention to this: the more people know about this data, the more people can use it, and the better the tax money has been spent. Plus, I imagine the Danish blog post provides good starting points for anyone wishing to use this data in similar ways.
JetSpiegel 12y ago
I'm pretty sure that paying an intern or two for a few weeks to produce tangible results is well down on the "unnecessary government spending" ladder.
- bananas 12y ago
  Interns doesn't mean free labour in Europe unlike the US. If every department has one, it's got a significant cost.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    Not free but cheap(er) than a regular worker.
  - bgsacho 12y ago
    A significant cost for who? How many employees does the Danish government have?
    - Craig125 12y ago
      In the working age of 18-64, 27% of the population works under the Danish government.

by bananas 12y ago

zimpenfish 12y ago

If you go down the "government should be cost efficient" route, you end up with things like [/PPI/] which, whilst making the government more cost efficient, has thoroughly damaged many vital UK services. Edit: By PPI, I meant PPP/PFI. I conflated the two into one incorrect abbreviation. Apologies.

arethuza 12y ago
Indeed, I can imagine if every small bit of work had to have a full analysis of ROI etc. then the whole bureaucracy intended to prevent the wasting of money would end us costing far more than could ever be saved. If the Ordnance Survey want to do even more cool stuff with a tiny bit of my taxpayers money then they have my blessing.
lmm 12y ago
What are you talking about? PPI was a private-industry thing. PPP is regarded as a failure partly because it damaged service provision but mostly because it didn't actually save money.
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  You're right - I've conflated PPP and PFI in my brain there. Apologies.
bananas 12y ago
That's total horse shit. PPP was not about government efficiency not has it improved efficiency. PPP was about trading a short immediate cost (infrastructure build) against a long one (rent). It was a cash flow measure to knock as much deficit on the head up front and reduce unemployment. This was purely a political measure for the government to "not look as shit". Of course in the long term it's a shitty deal for citizens, lots of political cash back-handers were taken and we've now got long-term rents to pay and stuck with low grade contract outfits. But that's what happens when you put capitalism and socialism in the same pot and stir it.
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  If it's reduced governmental cash outlay in the short term, is that not more "cost efficient"?
  - bananas 12y ago
    Because we're throwing a pile of cash away on fighting foreign wars we can't win and killing people rather than abolishing PPP and concentrating on looking after all the sick people at home.

fetbaffe 12y ago

I usually get down voted here, so no surprise. Sweden made a virtual embassy in Second Life. It's closed now. Just money down the drain. http://secondhouseofsweden.com/ http://secondhouseofsweden.com/ Politicians have really hard time these days to put tax payer money where they should go, education, health care, law enforcement.

mnsc 12y ago
So tax money shouldn't fund fire departments?
- fetbaffe 12y ago
  Who are you asking?
bananas 12y ago
My point entirely!

schrijver 12y ago

In your other comment you call this a ’hack and a PR thing’ and it is exactly that: a neat hack to draw attention to the fact that the government is now publishing this data-set as free data. I think it’s great the government publishes this free data (given as it is was probably collected using tax money), and I also think it’s great they do a project to attract attention to this: the more people know about this data, the more people can use it, and the better the tax money has been spent. Plus, I imagine the Danish blog post provides good starting points for anyone wishing to use this data in similar ways.

JetSpiegel 12y ago

I'm pretty sure that paying an intern or two for a few weeks to produce tangible results is well down on the "unnecessary government spending" ladder.

bananas 12y ago
Interns doesn't mean free labour in Europe unlike the US. If every department has one, it's got a significant cost.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  Not free but cheap(er) than a regular worker.
- bgsacho 12y ago
  A significant cost for who? How many employees does the Danish government have?
  - Craig125 12y ago
    In the working age of 18-64, 27% of the population works under the Danish government.