My eyebrow is now so high that it joined my receding hairline.
I'm going to get political here.
Having spent waaaay too much of yesterday in the company of local authority senior persons, and having watched latest rabbit-in-headlights performance by a succession on Government Ministers I wouldn't trust with the pay booth of a municipal carpark, I glanced at this but then studied it: Councils want extra money for migrants
After a decade (or in the case of some LAs kept in power by giving those who don't contribute anything to the pot anything they want for their votes) of misrule, the various ways the whole sorry lot are trying to screw money out of tax and ratepayers is getting laughable. Especially in light of the remuneration that gets immediately steered to the very numpties that caused all these problems in the first place.
First it's climate change as a means of dealing with the waste problem. And now it's immigrants suddenly being discovered as being here, doing half the new jobs but remitting most of the dough back to the homeland.
Tell you what, I'd let most of these hard working, talented types try a few new jobs if we could just flush the whole sorry lot who claim to be serving us. Fat cats. Fat chance.
Showing posts with label LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION. Show all posts
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Targets, with the possibility of more targets soon
Just caught the tail end of a BBC News piece on excess packaging.
Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.
He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.
Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.
The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.
But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.
ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.
As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.
Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.
Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.
Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging
Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'
This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.
Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law
BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.
One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'
Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?
Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.
I was on board pretty much until the end.
That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'
What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).
When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.
Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.
And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.
Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.
He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.
Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.
The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.
But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.
ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.
As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.
Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.
Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.
Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging
Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'
This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.
Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law
BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.
One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'
Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?
Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.
I was on board pretty much until the end.
That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'
What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).
When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.
Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.
And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)