Government canteens lose shit loads of money

[Andy Onchan]

 

Without knowing what the budgeted cost was, the over spend is meaningless.

I've spent a bit of time trying to find out what the budgeted cost actually was, but the 2015-16 Pink Book seems to have disappeared completely from the government website. Only the latest year is on the Treasury page and previous years only have a press release with no data. There's no link from the Tynwald Hansard and even links from external sites (such as MF) are dead. It's extremely puzzling and very worrying if deliberate. There's nothing on the information centre either

Many statistics/accounts/reports have disappeared into the gov.im ether over the last 18 months.

[BossHogg]

 

Not for the first time a thread is being derailed by notwell's usual insistence on picking a fight on something irrelevant based on nothing more than his belief in his own omniscience.

 

Er..........it is not the first time I've picked someone up on some piss poor rant without that person having any real idea on the underlying numbers and how they are constructed.

Then his rant turned into some ridiculous bullshit around taxable benefits in kind. You couldn't make it up.

The figures are not easy to understand and it is just so weak to continually just slag off someone or anyone working for government.

The benefits in kind information was right as shown from a link that you posted; you just picked holes in minor points. A meal voucher is a benefit in kind (subject to certain limited exemption limits). But you would have to look past those blinkers to acknowledge that fact. I see even Roger Mexico can't be bothered arguing with you as there is simply no point in doing so. There could have been a much wider debate on this if you had not done your usual aggressive bully boy bullshit trick because, as RM points out, the way this is all accounted for requires much better scrutiny and debate.

 

So the end result is that you're happy that £600k a year of your tax money (more if you don't think the £334k is actually profit) is used to give government workers subsidised food every day? From your usual posts I thought you were a Mr Financial sector free market Tory who knows all about business? It's hardly good business is it? I imagine that if H & B's ran three pubs that lost £600k a year on food alone they wouldn't be open for that long would they? I certainly don't support a government service that's happy to make a £334k "profit" out of selling marked up food to hospital visitors but which is happy to lose £600k of taxpayers money supplying food to its own workers when they can afford to buy their food from a shop like everyone else. A staff canteen is a hangover from the 1970s socialist world of government worker perks that has no place in the real world anymore if it's taking £600k of taxpayers money out of the health system that could be used to pay nurses or to provide healthcare.

[BossHogg]

However the intention of the coffee shop being run internally is surely that any profits should be going to subsidise the hospital, not the staff canteen.

Exactly my issue from the start. If it's adding profit back into the system to pump into healthcare then that's great. But running a loss making service to subsidize people who are employed in the government canteen is pure madness. Just put it out to private tender and get rid of the loss making operational costs. This is typical doomed government economics. You can maybe speculate that it only dropped the private contract for the hospital cafe as taking a 'profit' into the books there gets the losses down to 'only' £600k for the rest of the canteen. I also assume that you are right in your assessment that the £334k 'profit' probably has no costs of rent, electricity, or maybe even staff attached to it as it's too hard to split it out. So, as usual for IOMG, it's pretty easy to show a profit in the accounts when you have absolutely no operating costs that a normal business would have. That's what every other business calls turnover! I'm sure Stu Peters would just like to turn up for work in the morning, turn on the lights and start cranking up the steamers, and start booking pure profit from selling coffee without having to pay for staff, light, heat, rent etc out of his own pocket.

[John Wright]

So, let's break it down simply, and try and analyse against government accounting policies.

 

The overall food provision always ran at a loss. Two years ago a budget was put in place to cut the loss by £500,000. Not to eliminate it.

 

So, not only didn't we meet the loss reduction target but we lose a further £627,000. So £1.127 million isn't ecessarily the total loss.

 

Patient and school meal catering extra spend is part of the welfare state budget. The increased loss could be down to increased patient throughput and greater demand for free school meals, it could just as well be down to poor controls. We aren't told. Without those numbers it's meaningless.

 

This loss on Nobles Staff canteen, we aren't told if that's total loss or increase in loss. The inability to identify costs between the canteen and the visitor cafe ( now run in house ) is typical of government. As commented above there won't be rent or fuel heat light power charged ( but there would have been when privately run) . Apportionment is possible and can be done, even over staff time/cost.

 

The alleged profit on the visitor cafe is £1,000 per day. What's the average spend and what's the customer throughput?

 

It's a lot of tea, coffee and butties/cake.

 

More to this than meets the eye.

 

And without access to all the pink books, budgets, estimates and actuals to compare, it's meaningless.

[Albert Tatlock]

 

 

Without knowing what the budgeted cost was, the over spend is meaningless.

I've spent a bit of time trying to find out what the budgeted cost actually was, but the 2015-16 Pink Book seems to have disappeared completely from the government website. Only the latest year is on the Treasury page and previous years only have a press release with no data. There's no link from the Tynwald Hansard and even links from external sites (such as MF) are dead. It's extremely puzzling and very worrying if deliberate. There's nothing on the information centre either

Many statistics/accounts/reports have disappeared into the gov.im ether over the last 18 months.

This is where the 2015-16 Pink Book was...but it's now gone.

 

http://www.gov.im/media/1031671/pink_book_2014-15.pdf

 

However...I have uploaded a copy for you here

 

budget-2014-15.pdf

[BossHogg]

Two years ago a budget was put in place to cut the loss by £500,000. Not to eliminate it.

So, not only didn't we meet the loss reduction target but we lose a further £627,000. So £1.127 million isn't necessarily the total loss.

Patient and school meal catering extra spend is part of the welfare state budget.

 

Also don't forget that their whole rationale for doing this was that they said they could save £4m.

 

In actual reality they've just lost more money.

[Albert Tatlock]

...and for historical perspective...

 

budget-2010-11.pdf

 

budget-2012-13.pdf

[asitis]

 

Two years ago a budget was put in place to cut the loss by £500,000. Not to eliminate it.

So, not only didn't we meet the loss reduction target but we lose a further £627,000. So £1.127 million isn't necessarily the total loss.

Patient and school meal catering extra spend is part of the welfare state budget.

Also don't forget that their whole rationale for doing this was that they said they could save £4m.

 

In actual reality they've just lost more money.

 

 

No surprises, this is what they are leading exponents of throughout government !

[BossHogg]

 

 

Two years ago a budget was put in place to cut the loss by £500,000. Not to eliminate it.

So, not only didn't we meet the loss reduction target but we lose a further £627,000. So £1.127 million isn't necessarily the total loss.

Patient and school meal catering extra spend is part of the welfare state budget.

 

Also don't forget that their whole rationale for doing this was that they said they could save £4m.

In actual reality they've just lost more money.

No surprises, this is what they are leading exponents of throughout government !

And they made that bigger loss even after they dropped a commercial cafe contract they were making a profit share on, took it over and took private sector taxpayers out of the labour market, and replaced them with government employees doing exactly the same thing (probably on more money). So it's taken on all of the cost (but not shown them anywhere in the accounts) to grab the same profits that were already being generated so it can use them to offset the increasing losses it's making in other areas. That is not effective corporatization by any stretch of the imagination.

[Roger Mexico]

This is where the 2015-16 Pink Book was...but it's now gone.

http://www.gov.im/media/1031671/pink_book_2014-15.pdf

 

However...I have uploaded a copy for you here

 

budget-2014-15.pdf

 

 

Thanks Albert. Unfortunately the change in how catering services were reorganised happened so late and so quickly that it was pushed through the month after the 2014-15 Budget[1], so there are no estimates for it in the February Budget. The costings for catering will be hidden away in the figures for individual Departments. There should be some figures in the 2015-16 Budget, but that has gone missing as well.

 

All have are the figures from this year's Budget for Government Catering Services:

 

Net Actual 2014-15: £ 751,000

Net Probable 2015-16: £ 2,343,000

Gross Spend 2016-17: £ 6,383,000

Gross Income 2016-17: £ 4,894,000

Net 2016-17: £ 1,489,000

So costs actually soared in the second year of centralisation (you'd normally expect them to drop because of set-up costs in the first year).

[1] This was just before Mark Charters' appointment, so it can't be blamed on that convenient scapegoat. Indeed it looks more like a pet plan being pushed through during a power vacuum before a competent new CEO was appointed who might point out the flaws. Of course they didn't get a competent new CEO, but they weren't know that.

[gettafa]

 

Not for the first time a thread is being derailed by notwell's usual insistence on picking a fight on something irrelevant based on nothing more than his belief in his own omniscience.

Er..........it is not the first time I've picked someone up on some piss poor rant without that person having any real idea on the underlying numbers and how they are constructed.

 

Then his rant turned into some ridiculous bullshit around taxable benefits in kind. You couldn't make it up.

 

The figures are not easy to understand and it is just so weak to continually just slag off someone or anyone working for government.

 

 

Hey notty, you still at it, thinking you're the big I am when it comes to money stuff...

 

Didn't you learn after your Salisbury Street Care Home capers, where you were a whole £900,000 out in your assertions, that you generally talk a load of bollocks. I bet your work/family are over the moon when you are on t'computer, because it gives them a break from all your self-righteous bollocks.

[quilp]

Notty gets snotty.

[notwell]

 

 

Not for the first time a thread is being derailed by notwell's usual insistence on picking a fight on something irrelevant based on nothing more than his belief in his own omniscience.

Er..........it is not the first time I've picked someone up on some piss poor rant without that person having any real idea on the underlying numbers and how they are constructed.

 

Then his rant turned into some ridiculous bullshit around taxable benefits in kind. You couldn't make it up.

 

The figures are not easy to understand and it is just so weak to continually just slag off someone or anyone working for government.

 

 

Hey notty, you still at it, thinking you're the big I am when it comes to money stuff...

 

Didn't you learn after your Salisbury Street Care Home capers, where you were a whole £900,000 out in your assertions, that you generally talk a load of bollocks. I bet your work/family are over the moon when you are on t'computer, because it gives them a break from all your self-righteous bollocks.

 

You never got the contract for Salisbury Street (and no one agrees with you either) - move on FFS

 

I'm just not a fan of someone breaking into a fucking big rant with no real details behind it.

For the record - I don't think we should look across the entire public sector and civil service and simply take a swipe at anything and everything related to them. For example, I don't view the situation at the hospital (which is a vital part of the island) to that off government offices. I'd see an £100k loss in there as much more of an issue wouldnt you? (and even putting that in context it's a fraction of the cost of the flexi time sham i suspect).

 

I suspect my work/family are just pleased i'm keeping both parties well looked after with all my hard graft. You should try it some time.

[woolley]

So as I asked last night. Why are we continuing to do it? The private sector can provide at apparently similar prices and make a (taxable and NIable) profit. The public sector average pay is above the private sector average pay so it isn't like they seed subsidising (even if they were). Just stop it.

[Kopek]

Wooley, we can see, despite the lack of meaningful figures, why they do it. It allows them to post the turnover as a deductable against overall costs!