Stop Painting Roads

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Why is this idea important?

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Highways Traffic Officers

Since the inception of the Highways Officers on the country's motorways, I for one have seen no great improvement to the traffic flow. As I remember they were introduced under the headline of "Jambusters". Whenever I see a patrol they are always two and sometimes three people in a very expensive 4×4. As I understand the job was previously done by the motorway police. I would suggest that this was a more cost effect way of keeping the motorways flowing.

Why not consider handing the running of the motorway's back to the police who seemed to do as good a job at what must have been a greatly reduced budget.      

Why is this idea important?

Since the inception of the Highways Officers on the country's motorways, I for one have seen no great improvement to the traffic flow. As I remember they were introduced under the headline of "Jambusters". Whenever I see a patrol they are always two and sometimes three people in a very expensive 4×4. As I understand the job was previously done by the motorway police. I would suggest that this was a more cost effect way of keeping the motorways flowing.

Why not consider handing the running of the motorway's back to the police who seemed to do as good a job at what must have been a greatly reduced budget.      

Cut FREE boilers and central heating installations

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

Remove all ewducation acts since 1976

Before 1976 Education was the responsibility of schools and teachers.  Local Authorities were required to make sure that there were enough schools for all the children in their area and had to ensure every child had a place in school.  Central Government provided a framework and the funds. 

In 1976 the Great Education Debate allowed Central Government to get involved in Education and it's not worked.  The National Curriculum as a guideline would be fine, but it's become a requirement. In ordr to deliver a centralised curriculum we have seen the development of lots of new QUANGOs like OFSTED and QCA etc.  Before HMI was able to check that Local Authorities were doing their work while Local inspectors checked that the schools were delivering.  Some Local Authorities were poor at their job, but we now have laws that allow Government to inspect Local Authorities, lets use that model for Education.  HMI can inspect the Authority and require it to do its job properly.  But lets get Central Government out of the minutii of schools and education. Restore Local Authority and Accountability.

Why is this idea important?

Before 1976 Education was the responsibility of schools and teachers.  Local Authorities were required to make sure that there were enough schools for all the children in their area and had to ensure every child had a place in school.  Central Government provided a framework and the funds. 

In 1976 the Great Education Debate allowed Central Government to get involved in Education and it's not worked.  The National Curriculum as a guideline would be fine, but it's become a requirement. In ordr to deliver a centralised curriculum we have seen the development of lots of new QUANGOs like OFSTED and QCA etc.  Before HMI was able to check that Local Authorities were doing their work while Local inspectors checked that the schools were delivering.  Some Local Authorities were poor at their job, but we now have laws that allow Government to inspect Local Authorities, lets use that model for Education.  HMI can inspect the Authority and require it to do its job properly.  But lets get Central Government out of the minutii of schools and education. Restore Local Authority and Accountability.

Agency fees for public sector workers – capped

Instigate a capped percentage system for all Local Authority/Health Service/Education employees etc. While many Vendor Managed Systems are in place, they are not generally used for any specialist or higher paid temporary staff. Large percentages are taken by agencies in these case, typically 25% and upwards. My solution, Cap and let those who can drive efficiencies of scale, Trade. A cap of say 12% commission should be introduced for all public sector agency staff. This is a very quick win, and it is difficult to see where productivity will be affected. 

A lack of full time employee productivity in the public sector, has required flexible temporary staff to fill the gap, senior management increasingly rely on these workers to deliver services, projects and programmes. Audit Commission recommendations require, in this instance, LAs to deliver services through full time staff. Managers use agencies to recruit these specialist and valuable staff, often these decisions are at odds with the ACs recommendations. This drives a lack of transparency, which in turn leads to less centrally managed recruitment, which has less economies of scale and therefore a high cost. This high cost is due to wasteful agency fees and not agency workers rates of pay that are generally set by supply and demand in specialist labour market areas.

Why is this idea important?

Instigate a capped percentage system for all Local Authority/Health Service/Education employees etc. While many Vendor Managed Systems are in place, they are not generally used for any specialist or higher paid temporary staff. Large percentages are taken by agencies in these case, typically 25% and upwards. My solution, Cap and let those who can drive efficiencies of scale, Trade. A cap of say 12% commission should be introduced for all public sector agency staff. This is a very quick win, and it is difficult to see where productivity will be affected. 

A lack of full time employee productivity in the public sector, has required flexible temporary staff to fill the gap, senior management increasingly rely on these workers to deliver services, projects and programmes. Audit Commission recommendations require, in this instance, LAs to deliver services through full time staff. Managers use agencies to recruit these specialist and valuable staff, often these decisions are at odds with the ACs recommendations. This drives a lack of transparency, which in turn leads to less centrally managed recruitment, which has less economies of scale and therefore a high cost. This high cost is due to wasteful agency fees and not agency workers rates of pay that are generally set by supply and demand in specialist labour market areas.