Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
StevieBee said:
Oooh. Here we go then!
If you are the remotely bit interested then a couple of examples:
The work and projects I described have:
Saved Warwickshire County Council circa £950k annually (since 2014) in avoided disposal costs resulting from a decrease in food waste going in the rubbish bin. We knocked on around 40,000 doors. Our fees for that was around £85k.
Saved Hull City Council around £450k annually (since 2015) in avoided disposal costs through a reduction in household recycling contamination. Knocked 33,000 doors Our fees for that one were £100k.
In Hounslow in 2011, we boosted recycling to a level that led to a net gain to the council of some £220k. Can't remember the number of knocks for that one but think it was around 40k mark. Our fees were £60k.
That's just three examples. The combined economic benefit of these since the projects were delivered is around £15m. We charged at total of £245k so that's a return on investment to the local authorities of, what... 61:1 or something like that.
I'm not sure what your definition of 'miniscule' is but from where I sit, this ain't it.
Don't forget that money we saved those local authorities would have eventually landed with local taxpayers through their council tax. The revenue generated has contributed to council tax rises being less than they might otherwise have been. I don't know where you live but we've worked with around 160 local authorities over the past 20 years so there's every chance you have benefited from our work.
You're welcome.
It's a pity it is so difficult to recruit for these types of projects. Since 2016, less of them are being deployed for this very reason. It's no coincidence that recycling rates have flatlined and recycling contamination is increasing.
And it's not just about saving money. We have helped to make sure older residents were aware of the assisted collection services available to them, helped to make sure people were aware of changes to their services and provide other advisory services to assist local residents.
I hope it was money not pissed up against the wall.If you are the remotely bit interested then a couple of examples:
The work and projects I described have:
Saved Warwickshire County Council circa £950k annually (since 2014) in avoided disposal costs resulting from a decrease in food waste going in the rubbish bin. We knocked on around 40,000 doors. Our fees for that was around £85k.
Saved Hull City Council around £450k annually (since 2015) in avoided disposal costs through a reduction in household recycling contamination. Knocked 33,000 doors Our fees for that one were £100k.
In Hounslow in 2011, we boosted recycling to a level that led to a net gain to the council of some £220k. Can't remember the number of knocks for that one but think it was around 40k mark. Our fees were £60k.
That's just three examples. The combined economic benefit of these since the projects were delivered is around £15m. We charged at total of £245k so that's a return on investment to the local authorities of, what... 61:1 or something like that.
I'm not sure what your definition of 'miniscule' is but from where I sit, this ain't it.
Don't forget that money we saved those local authorities would have eventually landed with local taxpayers through their council tax. The revenue generated has contributed to council tax rises being less than they might otherwise have been. I don't know where you live but we've worked with around 160 local authorities over the past 20 years so there's every chance you have benefited from our work.
You're welcome.
It's a pity it is so difficult to recruit for these types of projects. Since 2016, less of them are being deployed for this very reason. It's no coincidence that recycling rates have flatlined and recycling contamination is increasing.
And it's not just about saving money. We have helped to make sure older residents were aware of the assisted collection services available to them, helped to make sure people were aware of changes to their services and provide other advisory services to assist local residents.
How much of those savings came from door knocking compared to changes to policy implemented by the councils on how they collect waste and the general increase in recycling that people have embraced anyway? I assume you are not claiming all the savings came from your door knocking?
swisstoni said:
StevieBee said:
520TORQUES said:
StevieBee said:
How so?
I don't need someone knocking on my door to tell me when the bins will be collected. The engagement value of strategies like that are miniscule. Edited by StevieBee on Monday 15th January 13:43
If you are the remotely bit interested then a couple of examples:
The work and projects I described have:
Saved Warwickshire County Council circa £950k annually (since 2014) in avoided disposal costs resulting from a decrease in food waste going in the rubbish bin. We knocked on around 40,000 doors. Our fees for that was around £85k.
Saved Hull City Council around £450k annually (since 2015) in avoided disposal costs through a reduction in household recycling contamination. Knocked 33,000 doors Our fees for that one were £100k.
In Hounslow in 2011, we boosted recycling to a level that led to a net gain to the council of some £220k. Can't remember the number of knocks for that one but think it was around 40k mark. Our fees were £60k.
That's just three examples. The combined economic benefit of these since the projects were delivered is around £15m. We charged at total of £245k so that's a return on investment to the local authorities of, what... 61:1 or something like that.
I'm not sure what your definition of 'miniscule' is but from where I sit, this ain't it.
Don't forget that money we saved those local authorities would have eventually landed with local taxpayers through their council tax. The revenue generated has contributed to council tax rises being less than they might otherwise have been. I don't know where you live but we've worked with around 160 local authorities over the past 20 years so there's every chance you have benefited from our work.
You're welcome.
It's a pity it is so difficult to recruit for these types of projects. Since 2016, less of them are being deployed for this very reason. It's no coincidence that recycling rates have flatlined and recycling contamination is increasing.
And it's not just about saving money. We have helped to make sure older residents were aware of the assisted collection services available to them, helped to make sure people were aware of changes to their services and provide other advisory services to assist local residents.
Unfortunately, that's not how the public sector works. Costs are incurred in one place and financial benefits land elsewhere and never the twain does meet. I have offered to run projects on a pure risk and reward basis (i.e. a percentage of the savings/benefit we deliver) but there is no means for them to procure services on that basis. That's a topic for a different thread.
The thing is, the projects were and are well funded for what they are. We were paying very good hourly rates to attract staff to the projects and still making a meaningful profit. Our last project of this type was in the tail end of 2019 in London and ended up offering £20 - £25 an hour (equivalent to around £45k to £50k pa) which, to be frank, for this type of work is ridiculous. Whilst we can still make a margin on that, there's no headroom if we get a swerve ball. Despite the rates we were offering, we still ended up with four less applicants than we had vacancies for. I'm certain we could have added another £10 to the rate and would not have made the slightest difference. There is simply no longer the pool of willing and able people to the extent there once was.
isaldiri said:
Income taxes I'd say probably aren't the right place to be honest to be looking at freezing or reducing rates. As things stand, they already are not particularly high compared to europe and if anything, this from the IFS shows that overall taxes should arguably be raised rather than reduced through social security type contributions as that's where the UK has an obvious deficit vs the rest of europe. If anything, for all the perception that taxes should be reduced, there might well be a good argument to be increasing the overall tax take through higher contributions both from employer and employee on the middle to bottom earners on this graph taken from
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how....
Increasing corp taxes (well assuming they are actually paid properly in the first place) would be also definitely not be the area I think that should be increased and if anything it should really be reduced.
That doesn't take into account the need for a private pension here that would be covered by the state pension in the likes of France. So add the typical contribution rate to the UK figure......https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how....
Increasing corp taxes (well assuming they are actually paid properly in the first place) would be also definitely not be the area I think that should be increased and if anything it should really be reduced.
Tom8 said:
We can never have good productivity where productivity is GDP divided by hours worked. Our state employment which does not contribute to GDP will never allow this. Isn't the NHS one of the biggest employers in the world?
Output of State services forms part of the productivity statistics and has been a big drag on them. isaldiri said:
Income taxes I'd say probably aren't the right place to be honest to be looking at freezing or reducing rates. As things stand, they already are not particularly high compared to europe and if anything, this from the IFS shows that overall taxes should arguably be raised rather than reduced through social security type contributions as that's where the UK has an obvious deficit vs the rest of europe. If anything, for all the perception that taxes should be reduced, there might well be a good argument to be increasing the overall tax take through higher contributions both from employer and employee on the middle to bottom earners on this graph taken from
Increasing corp taxes (well assuming they are actually paid properly in the first place) would be also definitely not be the area I think that should be increased and if anything it should really be reduced.
I agree that the overall tax take is too low, but not sure that it should be increased at the lower and middle end. That may have some merit if were matched by an equivalent level of social spending, such as in the Scandinavian countries, but of llitle benefit without that. There's also a valid case for reduced corporation taxes. Sweden's for example is only 20%, but that's also countered by collecfive bargaining and a larger welfare state.Increasing corp taxes (well assuming they are actually paid properly in the first place) would be also definitely not be the area I think that should be increased and if anything it should really be reduced.
The issue of corporation taxes is an interesting one, partiicularly in an increasingly digital/tech age. For example, if I buy foreign goods over a certain amount, they're subjecy to import duties, as well as vat. However, I could spend hundreds of pounds over the course of a year on digital goods, like in app purchases, from a foreign supplier, without such duties. Ironically Apple/Google charge that suppilier a "tax" of up to 30% for operating in their environment, which could also be realised overseas, with no sight of that money in the UK, despite it being a UK consumer.
It gets even more complex/disturbing when you look at AI. Presentlly I may employ a department with a collective wage bill of £1m. That provides the economy with not only their spending power, but hundreds of thousands in business and personal tax and NI contributions. In a few short years I might be able to replace that department with AI, meaning not only lost spending power and tax/NI revenues, but also a potential benefits expenditure.
These are very real challenges that society/governments face, that wont be solved by increasing personall taxes. In fact they can't even be meaningfully addresssed under our current economic structure.
Why are low taxes a good thing? Surely what matters is how nice your society is to live in overall. Personal taxes are hideous here in Denmark. There is also a tax on property ownership and luxury taxes on cars. However the general standard of living seems much higher than the U.K., there seems to be less poverty and Denmark is usually at the top of lists for most happy or contented countries.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Oh Reform are absolutely everything that's wrong.
Britain is a beacon of good government, characterised by honest politicians who are modest and cautious with their promises, while being frank and open about their limitations.
My adult life has been split roughly evenly between Tory and Labour governments with a smattering of Lib Dem coalition in the middle and every single one of them have stuck rigidly to the letter and spirit of their manifestos, which in turn are crafted with rigor and diligence to be free from any conflicting objectives or unrealistic promises.
Our established main parties form an intricate ecosystem where a delicate balance of power stops any ego becoming too large in a framework of constructive opposition based on mutual respect.
That's why we have had balanced budgets, stable prices, controlled immigration, good public services, low crime and a coherent foreign policy.
You missed my point. Everything in your post, combined with FPTP which effectively prevents that from changing is, in my view, what has led to 10% of the British electorate declaring their intention to vote for a party with mutually exclusive dog whistle policies as their manifesto. Would you not agree that the fact this can happen is a very good symptom of all that is wrong?Britain is a beacon of good government, characterised by honest politicians who are modest and cautious with their promises, while being frank and open about their limitations.
My adult life has been split roughly evenly between Tory and Labour governments with a smattering of Lib Dem coalition in the middle and every single one of them have stuck rigidly to the letter and spirit of their manifestos, which in turn are crafted with rigor and diligence to be free from any conflicting objectives or unrealistic promises.
Our established main parties form an intricate ecosystem where a delicate balance of power stops any ego becoming too large in a framework of constructive opposition based on mutual respect.
That's why we have had balanced budgets, stable prices, controlled immigration, good public services, low crime and a coherent foreign policy.
Skeptisk said:
Why are low taxes a good thing? Surely what matters is how nice your society is to live in overall. Personal taxes are hideous here in Denmark. There is also a tax on property ownership and luxury taxes on cars. However the general standard of living seems much higher than the U.K., there seems to be less poverty and Denmark is usually at the top of lists for most happy or contented countries.
That's a very interesting observation. Certainly low taxes don''t correlate to levels of happiness and contentment, which surely must be the key goal for any society.Personally tax isn't an issue for me, and it's more about the bottom line. If lower taxes result in fewer services, that I then have to pay for privately, then I'm no bettter off, and possibly worse. In the end tax itself isn't the issue, it's value for money that counts, and the overall standard of living and society..
wc98 said:
Kermit power said:
I'd never really given much thought to Reform UK before seeing a surprising number of people on the "Voting Intentions" thread saying that they were actually considering voting for them. What's more, it seems from opinion polls that around 10% of the country are actually considering voting for them, so I went to have a look at their policies and found this...
We live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
You might support the policy of net zero immigration or you might not. That is your own personal opinion, and there are surely more than enough other threads on here debating that.
You may also support the idea of zero waiting lists. Nobody likes waiting for medical care, of course, even if it would be very costly to deliver.
Lastly, you might also favour the idea of lower taxation. Who doesn't?
Regardless of your views on those three individual topics, however, surely nobody can truly look at all three together and believe they are any more deliverable than a kosher vegetarian bacon sarnie???
I find it honestly scary that the state of mainstream British politics has reached a point where 10% of the British electorate can actually look at Reform UK's three short, clear, easy to understand yet completely mutually exclusive policies and think "yes, that would be an improvement"!?! You could have all three, of course, but only if you're willing to pursue a ruthless euthanasia policy to cull the sick, elderly or otherwise unproductive in society, and I'd hope not too many people actually want that?
How on earth have we come to this??? Surely something has to change?
While i would rather poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick than vote Reform i find it strange that anyone would dismiss those aims out of hand. Unachievable ? In your mind maybe and given the trajectory of the nation maybe that lack of ambition exists in too many people. What i would like to see change is people voting for the same old sWe live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
You might support the policy of net zero immigration or you might not. That is your own personal opinion, and there are surely more than enough other threads on here debating that.
You may also support the idea of zero waiting lists. Nobody likes waiting for medical care, of course, even if it would be very costly to deliver.
Lastly, you might also favour the idea of lower taxation. Who doesn't?
Regardless of your views on those three individual topics, however, surely nobody can truly look at all three together and believe they are any more deliverable than a kosher vegetarian bacon sarnie???
I find it honestly scary that the state of mainstream British politics has reached a point where 10% of the British electorate can actually look at Reform UK's three short, clear, easy to understand yet completely mutually exclusive policies and think "yes, that would be an improvement"!?! You could have all three, of course, but only if you're willing to pursue a ruthless euthanasia policy to cull the sick, elderly or otherwise unproductive in society, and I'd hope not too many people actually want that?
How on earth have we come to this??? Surely something has to change?
te expecting a different result.Anyone that has cast a vote several times must surely see the current choices of s
t soup vs a st sandwich or raving lunatics, not of the monster variety, really isn't a good way of doing things. Red or Blue the main aim is extract as much from those that pay their wages for the benefit of themselves and the people that bankroll them.The only vote i will be casting any time soon will be none of the above right across the ballot paper.
That doesn't change the fact that those Reform pledges are unachievable. If you could show a genuine way of delivering lower taxes with zero waiting lists in the NHS and zero increase in migration you'd win by a landslide, but you won't because it's simply not possible.
Terminator X said:
Lol'ing at the OP, if Brexit taught us one thing it's that their policies (all parties) aren't even worth the paper they are written on. Politics is fked, I'd rather vote for None Of The Above at election time if it was possible.
TX.
In this we are agreed, but at least the other parties at least try to pretend their policies are vaguely achievable. Reform UK might as well promise everyone £5m and a pink fluffy unicorn, yet there are people queueing up with their open wallet in one hand and their unicorn saddle in the other.ked, I'd rather vote for None Of The Above at election time if it was possible.TX.
JagLover said:
Kermit power said:
Another option would be to immediately increase State retirement age to 75 to restore the link between retirement age and life expectancy, but quite apart from the obvious electoral suicide that might entail, it would also be an increase in taxation, so isn't an option open to Reform UK under their manifesto.
.
Why would that be required when the number in receipt of the state pension isn't rising?.
The number in receipt of the state pension now is slightly lower than it was ten years ago. This situation may well change in the future but then there is already a further planned increase in the retirement age to mitigate this.
Tom8 said:
We can never have good productivity where productivity is GDP divided by hours worked. Our state employment which does not contribute to GDP will never allow this. Isn't the NHS one of the biggest employers in the world?
There are a lot of countries with higher % public employment than the UK but also with higher productivity.QJumper said:
I agree that the overall tax take is too low, but not sure that it should be increased at the lower and middle end. That may have some merit if were matched by an equivalent level of social spending, such as in the Scandinavian countries, but of llitle benefit without that. There's also a valid case for reduced corporation taxes. Sweden's for example is only 20%, but that's also countered by collecfive bargaining and a larger welfare state.
If you look at the IFS graph in that link and tag onto one of the interactive bits, the income tax paid by the higher earners isn't all that much less in other european countries to here. The big difference is on the middle/lower earners on social security contributions especially once you factor numbers of people involved with some differential in SSCs from higher earners as well. Whether or not one chooses to classify that as tax, it's still pretty much part of the government overall tax revenue whether contributed in income taxes or social security. There is a fairly glaring gap there that the UK has relative to most of the other european countries. Now there's a cost to this of course in potentially a higher rate of unemployment as a result of employers not wanting to have to fork out that extra contribution per employee so it's not a magic bullet either obviously.....
cheesejunkie said:
I could have fun and games with that reply but I'll treat you with respect.
I don't support an unlimited supply of labour. Yes I'm an employer and yes I want applicants. But I'm not hiring cleaners, I'm hiring educated people.
I've nothing against cleaners, my mother worked as one once. If I had to I would.
It's not inevitable that the tax burden falls on the middle. It's a political choice supported by multiple electorates. Because they're easy pickings. That sort of fatalism leads to it being an inevitability and some voting for dumbass parties who promise rainbow dust, thankfully not in sufficient numbers. I'm serious, I'd love to see a party present a serious plan to deal with it and I'd vote for them, not going to happen but in the absence of it happening I'm not going to vote for pixie dust.
It seems very likely that it will fall on the middle. The poor can't shoulder it by definition and the rich are inevitably people who are good at slanting the table in their direction. I'm sure there's room for improvement but I don't see how you'd ever overcome this.I don't support an unlimited supply of labour. Yes I'm an employer and yes I want applicants. But I'm not hiring cleaners, I'm hiring educated people.
I've nothing against cleaners, my mother worked as one once. If I had to I would.
It's not inevitable that the tax burden falls on the middle. It's a political choice supported by multiple electorates. Because they're easy pickings. That sort of fatalism leads to it being an inevitability and some voting for dumbass parties who promise rainbow dust, thankfully not in sufficient numbers. I'm serious, I'd love to see a party present a serious plan to deal with it and I'd vote for them, not going to happen but in the absence of it happening I'm not going to vote for pixie dust.
They're all promising pixie dust.
520TORQUES said:
StevieBee said:
Oooh. Here we go then!
If you are the remotely bit interested then a couple of examples:
The work and projects I described have:
Saved Warwickshire County Council circa £950k annually (since 2014) in avoided disposal costs resulting from a decrease in food waste going in the rubbish bin. We knocked on around 40,000 doors. Our fees for that was around £85k.
Saved Hull City Council around £450k annually (since 2015) in avoided disposal costs through a reduction in household recycling contamination. Knocked 33,000 doors Our fees for that one were £100k.
In Hounslow in 2011, we boosted recycling to a level that led to a net gain to the council of some £220k. Can't remember the number of knocks for that one but think it was around 40k mark. Our fees were £60k.
That's just three examples. The combined economic benefit of these since the projects were delivered is around £15m. We charged at total of £245k so that's a return on investment to the local authorities of, what... 61:1 or something like that.
I'm not sure what your definition of 'miniscule' is but from where I sit, this ain't it.
Don't forget that money we saved those local authorities would have eventually landed with local taxpayers through their council tax. The revenue generated has contributed to council tax rises being less than they might otherwise have been. I don't know where you live but we've worked with around 160 local authorities over the past 20 years so there's every chance you have benefited from our work.
You're welcome.
It's a pity it is so difficult to recruit for these types of projects. Since 2016, less of them are being deployed for this very reason. It's no coincidence that recycling rates have flatlined and recycling contamination is increasing.
And it's not just about saving money. We have helped to make sure older residents were aware of the assisted collection services available to them, helped to make sure people were aware of changes to their services and provide other advisory services to assist local residents.
I hope it was money not pissed up against the wall.If you are the remotely bit interested then a couple of examples:
The work and projects I described have:
Saved Warwickshire County Council circa £950k annually (since 2014) in avoided disposal costs resulting from a decrease in food waste going in the rubbish bin. We knocked on around 40,000 doors. Our fees for that was around £85k.
Saved Hull City Council around £450k annually (since 2015) in avoided disposal costs through a reduction in household recycling contamination. Knocked 33,000 doors Our fees for that one were £100k.
In Hounslow in 2011, we boosted recycling to a level that led to a net gain to the council of some £220k. Can't remember the number of knocks for that one but think it was around 40k mark. Our fees were £60k.
That's just three examples. The combined economic benefit of these since the projects were delivered is around £15m. We charged at total of £245k so that's a return on investment to the local authorities of, what... 61:1 or something like that.
I'm not sure what your definition of 'miniscule' is but from where I sit, this ain't it.
Don't forget that money we saved those local authorities would have eventually landed with local taxpayers through their council tax. The revenue generated has contributed to council tax rises being less than they might otherwise have been. I don't know where you live but we've worked with around 160 local authorities over the past 20 years so there's every chance you have benefited from our work.
You're welcome.
It's a pity it is so difficult to recruit for these types of projects. Since 2016, less of them are being deployed for this very reason. It's no coincidence that recycling rates have flatlined and recycling contamination is increasing.
And it's not just about saving money. We have helped to make sure older residents were aware of the assisted collection services available to them, helped to make sure people were aware of changes to their services and provide other advisory services to assist local residents.
How much of those savings came from door knocking compared to changes to policy implemented by the councils on how they collect waste and the general increase in recycling that people have embraced anyway? I assume you are not claiming all the savings came from your door knocking?
The projects I referenced are what we call behaviour change service intervention projects. This is where large enough numbers of people are either not recycling as much as they could or doing something wrong and to a level that economically disadvantages the local authority. In each case there were no changes to the services prior to or after our work. We knock on their door, explain what's wrong, why it's important and encourage them to change their behaviours. Most do.
The metric by which our work is judged is the uplift in performance we achieve against a baseline set prior to us starting. For each of those projects, the increased performance was all us. So, yes, I am claiming those savings came solely from our door knocking project as there was no other intervention that existed. I'll refine that slightly and say that we generally only ever claim savings achieved in the financial year we work on a project. What a council does after we have completed a project is really down to them but that said, none of those authorities would have achieved the longer term benefits had it not been for our work.
To help further quell your original cynicism, waste services are provided at an equivalent cost per household at around half what it costs to actually provide. This can be achieved by recycling as recycling avoids disposal costs (around £200 per tonne) as well as generate a revenue from the material collected (recycling being a process of placing a commodity back into the supply chain). It doesn't take many households to get their recycling wrong to render all the recycling collected on that round to get rejected. So it makes sense for Local Authorities to appoint companies like mine to address issues like this.
As to whether the councils are pissing all these savings up the wall... no. They are not. That's not how it works. If you take the Warwickshire example, they are not £900k a year better off. We have helped stop them from being £900k worse off.
And I forgot to mention, we've never knocked on doors to tell people when bin day is.
Edited by StevieBee on Monday 15th January 19:40
QJumper said:
That seems counterintuitive to me. I agree that restricting the supply of unskilled labour will increase wages at the lower end, as well as increase investment in technology, but at a cost of reducing the size of the workforce and the associated tax take.
I'm also not sure that the tax burden falls on too few individuals, and more that it's heavily skewed against the wrong ones.
Nor do I think an increase in corporation taxes has to automatically be offset by higher prices. That's simply a consequence of a growth driven economic system, that demands ever increasing profits. So yes, I agree that in principle those profits are just a form of taxation by another name, which could equally be addresed by exploring alternative economic models.
The idea is that by better allocating resources you increase the tax base. This may mean fewer people earning more money each and claiming less in benefits rather than more people on minimum wage.I'm also not sure that the tax burden falls on too few individuals, and more that it's heavily skewed against the wrong ones.
Nor do I think an increase in corporation taxes has to automatically be offset by higher prices. That's simply a consequence of a growth driven economic system, that demands ever increasing profits. So yes, I agree that in principle those profits are just a form of taxation by another name, which could equally be addresed by exploring alternative economic models.
Importing people to play the role or an automated petrol pump or a packing machine is not a route to riches.
StevieBee said:
The projects I referenced are what we call behaviour change service intervention projects. This is where large enough numbers of people are either not recycling as much as they could or doing something wrong and to a level that economically disadvantages the local authority. In each case there were no changes to the services prior to or after our work. We knock on their door, explain what's wrong, why it's important and encourage them to change their behaviours. Most do.
The metric by which our work is judged is the uplift in performance we achieve against a baseline set prior to us starting. For each of those projects, the increased performance was all us. So, yes, I am claiming those savings came solely from our door knocking project as there was no other intervention that existed. I'll refine that slightly and say that we generally only ever claim savings achieved in the financial year we work on a project. What a council does after we have completed a project is really down to them but that said, none of those authorities would have achieved the longer term benefits had it not been for our work.
having said baseline set prior is all and good but......you would really need a control group of similar areas that did not have the same intervention to fairly be able to claim credit for all the change as compared to a more general intervening change in behaviour from the prior years.... if all the non intervention areas remained at the earlier baseline compared to your areas - fair play. If all areas showed an uptick however.......The metric by which our work is judged is the uplift in performance we achieve against a baseline set prior to us starting. For each of those projects, the increased performance was all us. So, yes, I am claiming those savings came solely from our door knocking project as there was no other intervention that existed. I'll refine that slightly and say that we generally only ever claim savings achieved in the financial year we work on a project. What a council does after we have completed a project is really down to them but that said, none of those authorities would have achieved the longer term benefits had it not been for our work.
isaldiri said:
StevieBee said:
The projects I referenced are what we call behaviour change service intervention projects. This is where large enough numbers of people are either not recycling as much as they could or doing something wrong and to a level that economically disadvantages the local authority. In each case there were no changes to the services prior to or after our work. We knock on their door, explain what's wrong, why it's important and encourage them to change their behaviours. Most do.
The metric by which our work is judged is the uplift in performance we achieve against a baseline set prior to us starting. For each of those projects, the increased performance was all us. So, yes, I am claiming those savings came solely from our door knocking project as there was no other intervention that existed. I'll refine that slightly and say that we generally only ever claim savings achieved in the financial year we work on a project. What a council does after we have completed a project is really down to them but that said, none of those authorities would have achieved the longer term benefits had it not been for our work.
having said baseline set prior is all and good but......you would really need a control group of similar areas that did not have the same intervention to fairly be able to claim credit for all the change as compared to a more general intervening change in behaviour from the prior years.... if all the non intervention areas remained at the earlier baseline compared to your areas - fair play. If all areas showed an uptick however.......The metric by which our work is judged is the uplift in performance we achieve against a baseline set prior to us starting. For each of those projects, the increased performance was all us. So, yes, I am claiming those savings came solely from our door knocking project as there was no other intervention that existed. I'll refine that slightly and say that we generally only ever claim savings achieved in the financial year we work on a project. What a council does after we have completed a project is really down to them but that said, none of those authorities would have achieved the longer term benefits had it not been for our work.
Again taking Warwickshire, they had quite good data and had identified collection rounds in five districts that were putting 15% more food waste in the rubbish bin compared to the county average that had remained the same for several years. Our project only targeted those collection round and because of this, the increased performance was only attributable to our work.
Kermit power said:
gt_12345 said:
Kermit, please answer this:
90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
That's a very pertinent question, but it's not a question for me to answer, it's a question for Reform to answer, as they're the ones claiming that they can deliver lower tax and zero waiting lists in the NHS whilst simultaneously overseeing a fall in the number of working people per pensioner and legislating to prevent the resultant gap being plugged with immigrant labour.90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
Your views may differ from mine or other people's as to which of those items we'd like to see, and I'd like to hope that we can have a thread that doesn't just go down that rabbithole, as I'm more interested in the fact that they are mutually exclusive.
You, GT, seem to misunderstand the purpose of the supplementary pay to those with income so low that they cannot live on them. It’s simple enough.
Companies want cheap labour. The government, or at least this one, wants to facilitate this and does so by such support. If they didn’t, we’d have people starving, unable to afford accommodation or to feed their children. Think of now for many people, but this time multiplied by a significant factor. They would demand higher pay, or to put it another way, a proper living wage, and one that increases with inflation.
It’s a way of subsidising industry, although this is outlawed by our trading partners.
You’d have to be frightened of actually thinking to believe that someone working for a wage which is less than they can survive on is a net taker. Read a few books on the subject. It’ll all become clear, but only if you open your mind.
And finally GT, don’t ask me questions. It’s not clever.
StevieBee said:
isaldiri said:
StevieBee said:
The projects I referenced are what we call behaviour change service intervention projects. This is where large enough numbers of people are either not recycling as much as they could or doing something wrong and to a level that economically disadvantages the local authority. In each case there were no changes to the services prior to or after our work. We knock on their door, explain what's wrong, why it's important and encourage them to change their behaviours. Most do.
The metric by which our work is judged is the uplift in performance we achieve against a baseline set prior to us starting. For each of those projects, the increased performance was all us. So, yes, I am claiming those savings came solely from our door knocking project as there was no other intervention that existed. I'll refine that slightly and say that we generally only ever claim savings achieved in the financial year we work on a project. What a council does after we have completed a project is really down to them but that said, none of those authorities would have achieved the longer term benefits had it not been for our work.
having said baseline set prior is all and good but......you would really need a control group of similar areas that did not have the same intervention to fairly be able to claim credit for all the change as compared to a more general intervening change in behaviour from the prior years.... if all the non intervention areas remained at the earlier baseline compared to your areas - fair play. If all areas showed an uptick however.......The metric by which our work is judged is the uplift in performance we achieve against a baseline set prior to us starting. For each of those projects, the increased performance was all us. So, yes, I am claiming those savings came solely from our door knocking project as there was no other intervention that existed. I'll refine that slightly and say that we generally only ever claim savings achieved in the financial year we work on a project. What a council does after we have completed a project is really down to them but that said, none of those authorities would have achieved the longer term benefits had it not been for our work.
Again taking Warwickshire, they had quite good data and had identified collection rounds in five districts that were putting 15% more food waste in the rubbish bin compared to the county average that had remained the same for several years. Our project only targeted those collection round and because of this, the increased performance was only attributable to our work.
Kermit power said:
Terminator X said:
Lol'ing at the OP, if Brexit taught us one thing it's that their policies (all parties) aren't even worth the paper they are written on. Politics is fked, I'd rather vote for None Of The Above at election time if it was possible.
TX.
In this we are agreed, but at least the other parties at least try to pretend their policies are vaguely achievable. Reform UK might as well promise everyone £5m and a pink fluffy unicorn, yet there are people queueing up with their open wallet in one hand and their unicorn saddle in the other.ked, I'd rather vote for None Of The Above at election time if it was possible.TX.
te the main party offering are. It’s why we are seeing the increasing popularity of the Right running across more and more of Mainland Europe. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff