Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large company would have their accounts audited.
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large company would have their accounts audited.
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large >company would have their accounts audited.
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large company would have their accounts audited.
On 02/06/2025 21:52, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:01:49 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large >>> company would have their accounts audited.
All the data is publicly available. They could get exactly the same level of >> transparency by means of simply reading the published documents on the
council's website augmented by some judicious use of FOI. So there's nothing >> stopping them, or indeed anyone else, running an analysis on the data.
Thanks Mark
The original DOGE concept was to cut Government waste under the Trump administration, which took a sledgehammer to many departments, so I
assume Reform's plan is similar, probably slashing department spending.
The problem, as I'm sure you know, is that pretty much all council's are already on vastly stretched budgets, with services cut to the bone.
Quite where Reform will find these savings is beyound me, but my
question was, is sending in a squad run by a "leading tech entrepreneur" legal?
On 02/06/2025 21:52, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:01:49 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style
squad to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this
should be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how
any large company would have their accounts audited.
All the data is publicly available. They could get exactly the same
level of transparency by means of simply reading the published
documents on the council's website augmented by some judicious use of
FOI. So there's nothing stopping them, or indeed anyone else, running
an analysis on the data.
The original DOGE concept was to cut Government waste under the Trump administration, which took a sledgehammer to many departments, so I
assume Reform's plan is similar, probably slashing department spending.
The problem, as I'm sure you know, is that pretty much all council's are already on vastly stretched budgets, with services cut to the bone.
Quite where Reform will find these savings is beyound me,
but my
question was, is sending in a squad run by a "leading tech entrepreneur" legal?
It depends (I suppose) on what they do and how they propose to do it. Councils
have statutory responsibilities and various contractual obligations. Looking simply at an expenditure head, deciding it's 'woke', and cutting it and the accompanying services could land the LA in a lot of legal trouble.
Any of that is not the point, though. It strikes me that Reform's method is to
deliver a message - a message that gets them elected. In a sense it doesn't matter if it's realisable. 'Populism'.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:01:49 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large >company would have their accounts audited.
All the data is publicly available. They could get exactly the same level of transparency by means of simply reading the published documents on the council's website augmented by some judicious use of FOI. So there's nothing stopping them, or indeed anyone else, running an analysis on the data.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:01:49 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large >>> company would have their accounts audited.
All the data is publicly available. They could get exactly the same level of >> transparency by means of simply reading the published documents on the
council's website augmented by some judicious use of FOI. So there's nothing >> stopping them, or indeed anyone else, running an analysis on the data.
One 'feature' of DOGE is getting access to databases of federal employees, which presumably includes their personal/protected data as well as payroll information. Would such action be legal here (as an outside actor), and
what level of security checks would you need to get access?
On 02/06/2025 21:52, Mark Goodge wrote:
All the data is publicly available. They could get exactly the same level of >> transparency by means of simply reading the published documents on the
council's website augmented by some judicious use of FOI. So there's nothing >> stopping them, or indeed anyone else, running an analysis on the data.
The original DOGE concept was to cut Government waste under the Trump >administration, which took a sledgehammer to many departments, so I
assume Reform's plan is similar, probably slashing department spending.
The problem, as I'm sure you know, is that pretty much all council's are >already on vastly stretched budgets, with services cut to the bone.
Quite where Reform will find these savings is beyound me, but my
question was, is sending in a squad run by a "leading tech entrepreneur" >legal?
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large company would have their accounts audited.
However, as you say, the prospect of them finding any significant
expenditure they can cut that hasn't already been cut is minimal. This is pure political theatre.
On 02/06/2025 09:01 PM, John wrote:
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large
company would have their accounts audited.
From Reform's POV, ie, from the viewpoint of a number of new
councillors who are not necessarily* familiar with the detailed way in
which a council works, I can easily imagine that getting to the heart of >things can be daunting.
Getting some professional assistance would seem to be a relatively wise
move, wouldn't you say?
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 11:47:49 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/06/2025 09:01 PM, John wrote:
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large >>> company would have their accounts audited.
From Reform's POV, ie, from the viewpoint of a number of new
councillors who are not necessarily* familiar with the detailed way in
which a council works, I can easily imagine that getting to the heart of
things can be daunting.
Getting some professional assistance would seem to be a relatively wise
move, wouldn't you say?
It would certainly be very wise for newly elected councillors who find theselves in positions of authority (cabinet roles and committee chairmanships) that they have absolutely no experience of to undergo a crash course in local government, yes. It would not be wise to simply delegate key decision-making to an outside body.
One of the things that hasn't yet been much remarked on, but is nonetheless extremely significant, is how little confidence Reform's leadership appears to have in its elected councillors. Conservative-run councils don't get told by CCHQ and Kemi Badenoch how to do their job. Labour-run councils don't get micromanaged by Keir Starmer. And Ed Davey doesn't spend his time sending in auditors to LibDem councils. But Nigel Farage appears to have absolutely minimal trust in the ability of his councillors to do an effective job if left to their own devices.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 11:47:49 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
One of the things that hasn't yet been much remarked on, but is nonetheless extremely significant, is how little confidence Reform's leadership appears to have in its elected councillors. Conservative-run councils don't get told by CCHQ and Kemi Badenoch how to do their job. Labour-run councils don't get micromanaged by Keir Starmer. And Ed Davey doesn't spend his time sending in auditors to LibDem councils. But Nigel Farage appears to have absolutely minimal trust in the ability of his councillors to do an effective job if left to their own devices.
Mark
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However, as you say, the prospect of them finding any significant
expenditure they can cut that hasn't already been cut is minimal. This is
pure political theatre.
The DOGE M.O. seems to be to cut it anyway, admit "we didn't know that ><entirely predictable consequences> would follow", then boast how much
'waste and fraud' you've cut anyway.
Don't assume that there's nothing left to cut - even if there is a statutory >requirement for some service they may just cut it, claim victory, and
pretend the mess left behind doesn't exist.
On 03/06/2025 13:18, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 11:47:49 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I would challenge you on that. Yes as a Conservative councillor, we were >never mandated to do anything, but the same was not true of an
One of the things that hasn't yet been much remarked on, but is nonetheless >> extremely significant, is how little confidence Reform's leadership appears >> to have in its elected councillors. Conservative-run councils don't get told >> by CCHQ and Kemi Badenoch how to do their job. Labour-run councils don't get >> micromanaged by Keir Starmer. And Ed Davey doesn't spend his time sending in >> auditors to LibDem councils. But Nigel Farage appears to have absolutely
minimal trust in the ability of his councillors to do an effective job if
left to their own devices.
unfortunate Labour councillor. We all wanted her for chair of the policy
& resources committee as she was trustworthy and had a degree in
economics - yet she was firmly told by Labour HQ NOT to accept the post
as the council had a conservative majority. I recall the poor lass in
tears.
On 03/06/2025 01:18 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 11:47:49 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Getting some professional assistance would seem to be a relatively wise
move, wouldn't you say?
It would certainly be very wise for newly elected councillors who find
theselves in positions of authority (cabinet roles and committee
chairmanships) that they have absolutely no experience of to undergo a crash >> course in local government, yes. It would not be wise to simply delegate key >> decision-making to an outside body.
Is that what THEY said they were going to do, or is it merely what they
are accused (here) of preparing to do?
One of the things that hasn't yet been much remarked on, but is nonetheless >> extremely significant, is how little confidence Reform's leadership appears >> to have in its elected councillors. Conservative-run councils don't get told >> by CCHQ and Kemi Badenoch how to do their job. Labour-run councils don't get >> micromanaged by Keir Starmer. And Ed Davey doesn't spend his time sending in >> auditors to LibDem councils. But Nigel Farage appears to have absolutely
minimal trust in the ability of his councillors to do an effective job if
left to their own devices.
Did you miss the bit - which I suggest is absolutely obvious - about a >wholesale lack of experience on the part of (most of?) the new councillors?
Or should they be brazening it out, insisting that they already know all
they need to know and that no independent and unbiased professional >assistance coud possibly help?
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:38:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2025 01:18 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 11:47:49 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Getting some professional assistance would seem to be a relatively wise >>>> move, wouldn't you say?
It would certainly be very wise for newly elected councillors who find
theselves in positions of authority (cabinet roles and committee
chairmanships) that they have absolutely no experience of to undergo a crash
course in local government, yes. It would not be wise to simply delegate key
decision-making to an outside body.
Is that what THEY said they were going to do, or is it merely what they
are accused (here) of preparing to do?
The letter cited in the BBC report explicitly states that an external body has been appointed to carry out work that would normally be done by councillors and officers. While it will, no doubt, be dressed up as "recommendations", it's somewhat implausible to suggest that Reform's councillors will not be under strict instructions to follow those recommendations to the letter, even if they disagree with them.
One of the things that hasn't yet been much remarked on, but is nonetheless >>> extremely significant, is how little confidence Reform's leadership appears >>> to have in its elected councillors. Conservative-run councils don't get told
by CCHQ and Kemi Badenoch how to do their job. Labour-run councils don't get
micromanaged by Keir Starmer. And Ed Davey doesn't spend his time sending in
auditors to LibDem councils. But Nigel Farage appears to have absolutely >>> minimal trust in the ability of his councillors to do an effective job if >>> left to their own devices.
Did you miss the bit - which I suggest is absolutely obvious - about a
wholesale lack of experience on the part of (most of?) the new councillors?
Well, it's probably true that Farage's lack of trust in his councillors is justified. But it's not a particularly good look. And if he wanted to do something about their inexperience, then it would make much more sense for him to lay on a considerable amount of training for them. Provided they're competant enough, it's not something that would be beyond them. All councillors have to start somewhere.
Or should they be brazening it out, insisting that they already know all
they need to know and that no independent and unbiased professional
assistance coud possibly help?
What they could say is "We have a large number of newly elected councillors, many of whom have important roles to fulfill in delivering our manifesto. So we're going to take some time to make sure we fully understand everything before making any major changes. In the meantime, we've arranged comprehensive training for all our newly elected members to help them get up to speed as rapidly as possible."
On 03 Jun 2025 13:17:49 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However, as you say, the prospect of them finding any significant
expenditure they can cut that hasn't already been cut is minimal. This is >>> pure political theatre.
The DOGE M.O. seems to be to cut it anyway, admit "we didn't know that >><entirely predictable consequences> would follow", then boast how much >>'waste and fraud' you've cut anyway.
Don't assume that there's nothing left to cut - even if there is a statutory >>requirement for some service they may just cut it, claim victory, and >>pretend the mess left behind doesn't exist.
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic year 2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it would be simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly from that.
Equally, councils have a statutory duty to provide certain services, and refusing to do so is simply not an option - the courts will, if necessary, intervene and order the provision of those services, and any officer or councillor who knowingly and deliberately obstructs the provision of those services could be in contempt.
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic year 2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it would be simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly from that.
Equally, councils have a statutory duty to provide certain services, and refusing to do so is simply not an option - the courts will, if
necessary, intervene and order the provision of those services, and any officer or councillor who knowingly and deliberately obstructs the
provision of those services could be in contempt.
Reform have announced that they are going to send in a DOGE style squad
to anylise Kent Council's finances?
"In a statement released late on Sunday, party chairman Zia Yusuf said
it would be "led by one of the UK's leading tech entrepreneurs",
although it is not yet known who that is."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Is this even legal? Surely if the finances needs assessing this should
be done by a team of auditors who are licenced, similar to how any large company would have their accounts audited.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:55:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic year
2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it would be
simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly from that.
In what way? My understanding of a "budget" is a document created at the >beginning of the financial year that says "This is what we expect our
income to be and this is what we plan to spend". Is that the same as what
you mean by it? If so, what happens if the council's expected income falls >short during the year for reasons outside its control? Do they simply say, >"We know the budget we wrote is now hopelessly unrealistic, but it's
against the law (what law?) to change it so we're going to pretend that >everything's perfectly all right even if that means we go bust?" Or do
they do what every other type of organisation does, including central >government, and say "We know the budget we wrote is hopelessly
unrealistic, so in order to stay solvent we have to amend it as
follows ..."?
Equally, councils have a statutory duty to provide certain services, and
refusing to do so is simply not an option - the courts will, if
necessary, intervene and order the provision of those services, and any
officer or councillor who knowingly and deliberately obstructs the
provision of those services could be in contempt.
It is highly unlikely that anyone is suggesting the council should fail
to fund the services it is statutorily required to provide. Rather that it >should examine its spending on items it is *not* required to provide, of >which there will certainly be some.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 05:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:55:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic year >>> 2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it would be >>> simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly from that.
In what way? My understanding of a "budget" is a document created at the >>beginning of the financial year that says "This is what we expect our >>income to be and this is what we plan to spend". Is that the same as what >>you mean by it? If so, what happens if the council's expected income falls >>short during the year for reasons outside its control? Do they simply say, >>"We know the budget we wrote is now hopelessly unrealistic, but it's >>against the law (what law?) to change it so we're going to pretend that >>everything's perfectly all right even if that means we go bust?" Or do
they do what every other type of organisation does, including central >>government, and say "We know the budget we wrote is hopelessly
unrealistic, so in order to stay solvent we have to amend it as
follows ..."?
You can't change the budget itself. If necessary, you can make changes to sums allocated via a process known as a virement.
On 2025-06-07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 05:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> >> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:55:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic year >>>> 2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it would be >>>> simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly from that.
In what way? My understanding of a "budget" is a document created at the >>> beginning of the financial year that says "This is what we expect our
income to be and this is what we plan to spend". Is that the same as what >>> you mean by it? If so, what happens if the council's expected income falls >>> short during the year for reasons outside its control? Do they simply say, >>> "We know the budget we wrote is now hopelessly unrealistic, but it's
against the law (what law?) to change it so we're going to pretend that
everything's perfectly all right even if that means we go bust?" Or do
they do what every other type of organisation does, including central
government, and say "We know the budget we wrote is hopelessly
unrealistic, so in order to stay solvent we have to amend it as
follows ..."?
You can't change the budget itself. If necessary, you can make changes to
sums allocated via a process known as a virement.
Just curious --- how do you pronounce "virement"? (I know it as the
French word for bank transfer.)
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 05:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Handsome Jack
<jack@handsome.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:55:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic
year 2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it
would be simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly
from that.
In what way? My understanding of a "budget" is a document created at the >>beginning of the financial year that says "This is what we expect our >>income to be and this is what we plan to spend". Is that the same as
what you mean by it? If so, what happens if the council's expected
income falls short during the year for reasons outside its control? Do
they simply say,
"We know the budget we wrote is now hopelessly unrealistic, but it's >>against the law (what law?) to change it so we're going to pretend that >>everything's perfectly all right even if that means we go bust?" Or do
they do what every other type of organisation does, including central >>government, and say "We know the budget we wrote is hopelessly
unrealistic, so in order to stay solvent we have to amend it as follows >>..."?
You can't change the budget itself. If necessary, you can make changes
to sums allocated via a process known as a virement. A typical example
would be where a council-owned building has suffered significant
non-insured damage and the cost of repair needs to be taken from
reserves. Or where demand for a service differs significantly from
forecasts, and either the overspend needs to be covered from reserves or
the underspend returned to reserves (or, possibly, transferred to a
different budget heading).
But a virement has to be justified by actual
circumstances. You can't make a virement to the budget purely for policy reasons; those are set in the budget itself.
Local authority budgets are different to commercial budgets, partly
because local authority budgets are heavily regulated by legislation[1]
but also because the vast majority of local government income is from taxation which is set in advance and cannot be changed if circumstances change. If a council underestimates its financial need and starts to run short, it can't put up council tax until the next financial year.
Equally, it can't just reduce council tax if it turns out to have more
money than it needs. Those decisions are made annually, and having been
made cannot be remade until the next year.
Equally, councils have a statutory duty to provide certain services,
and refusing to do so is simply not an option - the courts will, if
necessary, intervene and order the provision of those services, and
any officer or councillor who knowingly and deliberately obstructs the
provision of those services could be in contempt.
It is highly unlikely that anyone is suggesting the council should fail
to fund the services it is statutorily required to provide. Rather that
it should examine its spending on items it is *not* required to provide,
of which there will certainly be some.
Yes, there are things that could be cut if necessary. But, in practice,
most county level authorities have already cut those to the bone, and
cutting them further will result in a significant degradation of the
service provided. Highway repairs are a good example of that. Extend the period of time in between routine resurfacing, leave potholes for longer before repairing them, etc, and you can save quite a lot of money.
For a
county council, highways are the largest expenditure outside the
statutory requirements, so it's the easiest target for savings. Letting
the highways crumble won't break any laws, and it can generate
significant savings. But,
oddly enough, this is one of the things that Reform has actually
promised to spend more money on.
On 2025-06-07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 05:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> >> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:55:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic year >>>> 2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it would be >>>> simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly from that.
In what way? My understanding of a "budget" is a document created at the >>>beginning of the financial year that says "This is what we expect our >>>income to be and this is what we plan to spend". Is that the same as what >>>you mean by it? If so, what happens if the council's expected income falls >>>short during the year for reasons outside its control? Do they simply say, >>>"We know the budget we wrote is now hopelessly unrealistic, but it's >>>against the law (what law?) to change it so we're going to pretend that >>>everything's perfectly all right even if that means we go bust?" Or do >>>they do what every other type of organisation does, including central >>>government, and say "We know the budget we wrote is hopelessly >>>unrealistic, so in order to stay solvent we have to amend it as
follows ..."?
You can't change the budget itself. If necessary, you can make changes to
sums allocated via a process known as a virement.
Just curious --- how do you pronounce "virement"? (I know it as the
French word for bank transfer.)
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 19:37:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
You can't change the budget itself. If necessary, you can make changes
to sums allocated via a process known as a virement. A typical example
would be where a council-owned building has suffered significant
non-insured damage and the cost of repair needs to be taken from
reserves. Or where demand for a service differs significantly from
forecasts, and either the overspend needs to be covered from reserves or
the underspend returned to reserves (or, possibly, transferred to a
different budget heading).
In other words, you can change the budget if necessary. You just call it a >virement instead.
For a
county council, highways are the largest expenditure outside the
statutory requirements, so it's the easiest target for savings. Letting
the highways crumble won't break any laws, and it can generate
significant savings. But,
oddly enough, this is one of the things that Reform has actually
promised to spend more money on.
What's odd is that you are suggesting, on no evidence whatsoever, that
Reform will cut back on mending potholes, in contradiction to their stated >policy. The only person who has ever suggested they will do this is
yourself.
And contrary to what you say, the easiest target for savings is stuff that >you don't actually need to do. See above.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 11:31:56 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 05:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> >>> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:55:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
They can't make any significant changes to the budget for the civic year >>>>> 2025/2026, as that will have been set in March this year and it would be >>>>> simply unlawful for the executive to depart significantly from that.
In what way? My understanding of a "budget" is a document created at the >>>>beginning of the financial year that says "This is what we expect our >>>>income to be and this is what we plan to spend". Is that the same as what >>>>you mean by it? If so, what happens if the council's expected income falls >>>>short during the year for reasons outside its control? Do they simply say, >>>>"We know the budget we wrote is now hopelessly unrealistic, but it's >>>>against the law (what law?) to change it so we're going to pretend that >>>>everything's perfectly all right even if that means we go bust?" Or do >>>>they do what every other type of organisation does, including central >>>>government, and say "We know the budget we wrote is hopelessly >>>>unrealistic, so in order to stay solvent we have to amend it as
follows ..."?
You can't change the budget itself. If necessary, you can make changes to >>> sums allocated via a process known as a virement.
Just curious --- how do you pronounce "virement"? (I know it as the
French word for bank transfer.)
Vire = rhymes with dire (and hire, fire and wire)
+ment
The etymology is the same as the French word. But in public sector
accounting it has a more specific term, of transferring funds between different budget headings.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:46:47 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |