Do our schools need swimming pools?
Or to put it another way, should it be up to the schools to teach our children to swim?
Have you noticed the underlying assumption?
Swimming pools are not just about teaching a potentially life saving skill, they are also there as an alternative form of exercise which the kids might actually enjoy. A form of exercise which we should be encouraging if we’re concerned about rising child obesity or having healthy and fit kids.
But a swimming pool is an expensive piece of kit and clearly closing the pools looks as if it is going to save money. It’s an easy option and I’m surprised it hasn’t been thought of before.
But is it more important to save money in this way than to go for some of the fruit a bit higher up the tree?
How about considering some other options?
I’ve heard that Education staff have a perk of free uni education for their offspring. I can’t believe that such a thing still exists but if true then it should be stopped immediately. Why should one set of individuals have this benefit just because they happen to work in a particular department? The accumulated savings must be worthwhile.
Then there’s the Schools Music Service which runs at a cost of some £600k per year. It does provide the basis for a very high level of musical talent on this Island but does it really need to be free?
Why not means test it?
Doesn’t have to be an administrative nightmare. If you want your child to attend, then exhibit your tax coding notice to prove level of income and pay accordingly. If you’re worried about social exclusion then have a free band up to a set level and charge those earning more.
What about re-examining the scholarships which are provided each year to allow pupils to attend the colleges. Why aren’t these means tested?
Regularly we see children moved back into the state system for the run up to the 11+ in the hope that young Johnny can save the family a few thousand by flying through his exams and getting a free place. This is an obvious abuse of the system and one which can easily be stopped by means testing.
These scholarships were set up at a time when it was thought that the colleges provided the best education on the Island and that the bright children of poor families shouldn’t be excluded just because they couldn’t afford the cost.
The world has changed.
Some might still argue for these scholarships but there is no reason for them not to be means tested.
Talking of private education, isn’t it about time to stop giving the colleges financial support? I know the argument is that it would cost the States more overall as so many children would have to revert to states schools, their families unable to pay the higher fees a cut of subsidy would inevitably entail, but so what?
I suspect the flood would only be a trickle and I can only see an upside of more potentially influential people actually having a vested interest in the quality of education in our States schools.
Especially the sort of people who want a better quality of education for their kids and are prepared to do something about it.
Either these private colleges provide a better education or they do not (and this should be measured by a pupil’s relative progress and not by who gets the most exam passes). If the relative progress in the colleges is better than in the states system, then Education should model this successful formula into all of our schools or improve the quality of education in the states sector until it achieved the same end result. That is after all their basic job; to provide every child with a good education.
If our Education department are doing their job and the states sector does match up on relative progress rates, then why are we subsidising the colleges? Education either need to make a sound factual argument for maintaining the scholarships and subsidies or else scrap them.
Make that argument to the States and take it to a vote. Oh, and by the way, exclude from voting all those deputies with a vested interest in supporting the colleges. All those who are, or seeking to be, on their boards of governors, all the old boys and girls, and all those with immediate family links including grandchildren at these schools. Maybe then we might have a fair and unbiased vote based on facts and logic.
There used to be a time, in the real world at least, when those with a potential vested interest in the outcome of a particular decision would exclude themselves from the debate, or at least declare their interest, fight for their corner, and then withdraw before the vote.
I am sure that our political representatives are still equally honourable but they need to be seen to hold these moral standards and exclusion from the vote does seem the most transparent solution.
Sadly I can’t see any of these money saving suggestions seeing the light of day.
Too many vested interests.
Better to close a few swimming pools and upset those who really don’t matter too much.
Showing posts with label Leisure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leisure. Show all posts
Saturday, 8 June 2013
Friday, 10 May 2013
BS 3
What is the problem with Beau Sejour and why is it taking so long to sort out?
I believe there are a number of fundamental issues involved here starting with an understanding of what the centre is for.
Is it a profit making entity or is it a community asset?
Even if it is the latter, why can’t it generate a small profit? After all, we have several successful private gym and leisure facilities running on the Island so it must be possible to make money in this sector.
Another hint of potential profitability is the fact that at least three firms are interested in running Beau Sejour and so must believe that they can make a good profit for themselves out of the deal. If they can do it, why can’t it’s present owners?
I think it maybe a mindset problem. A mindset which thinks the centre is a service provider rather than a business and doesn’t need to make money; a mindset which needs changing if the centre is to remain in the public sector.
Then there is the possible mindset of the States themselves which seem to be heading towards privatisation of whatever they can get away with. Maybe this has something to do with Tribal Helm, the company brought in a while back to advise the States on how to run things.
Tribal Helm has since been taken over by the Capita Group which co-incidentally happens to make a substantial part of it’s own healthy profits from providing a wide range of services to the public sector. When you own a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
If the Island’s current set up isn’t fit for the purpose of running a business such as Beau Sejour then perhaps the set up needs changing rather than privatising which will only see any profits going into private pockets rather than back into the community coffers.
Another mindset seems to be showing itself over the creche closure in that the redundant staff are being helped to relocate within C&L or elsewhere in the States sector. An excellent idea if there are unfilled vacancies where these skills are needed but do such jobs exist or is it showing that the States rarely if ever reduce their numbers?
If Beau Sejour is overstaffed then perhaps we need to consider redundancies; a concept the private sector manages to achieve with ease.
A job in the public sector should not be for life; another idea which perhaps has yet to filter through from the private sector.
I can see why redundancies are so hard to contemplate. It’s the thin end of the wedge and only a short step to then consider the A word.
Accountability.
Something which thrives in the private sector. Do a good job and get rewarded. Do a bad job and get fired. Do a job which isn’t needed any more then get made redundant.
Why is it so hard to bring these practises to bear in the public sector?
Is it beyond the wit of those people who pull down the larger salaries to do just that and manage their relevant sectors?
Here’s a plan to sort out Beau Sejour.
Close it.
Close it and reopen it as a stand alone States assisted business which is precisely what it is at present.
Mandate it’s managers to run it for profit and allow them free rein to do just that and within two years. Hire and fire as necessary to bring this business back from the grave it seems to be in.
I say seems to be because on the face of it, Beau Sejour is a thriving and successful enterprise with over 600,000 footfalls through its doors a year. That means that on average 11,500 people go through those doors each week and that’s a lot of people.
Now either the costs of using the centre are too low or the overheads too high. Even I can work that out.
What I can’t understand is why the centre’s managers aren’t allowed to get on with their job and do whatever is necessary to return a small profit.
What is holding them back?
That is the question which needs to be asked and which needs answering in the public domain; not behind some closed door in a private meeting with stakeholders. The taxpayer is a stakeholder here and should be made aware of the issues.
Perhaps it’s time that our elected representatives did get involved with operational issues rather than being fobbed off with the “outside of your remit” excuse.
Not at the day to day nuts and bolts level but a good understanding of the effectiveness of managerial control might not be a bad thing especially if tied to some real power over hiring and firing of those who don’t seem to be able to control their departments.
Radical ideas perhaps but not as radical as throwing away a profitable business just because we can’t allow someone to run it effectively.
I believe there are a number of fundamental issues involved here starting with an understanding of what the centre is for.
Is it a profit making entity or is it a community asset?
Even if it is the latter, why can’t it generate a small profit? After all, we have several successful private gym and leisure facilities running on the Island so it must be possible to make money in this sector.
Another hint of potential profitability is the fact that at least three firms are interested in running Beau Sejour and so must believe that they can make a good profit for themselves out of the deal. If they can do it, why can’t it’s present owners?
I think it maybe a mindset problem. A mindset which thinks the centre is a service provider rather than a business and doesn’t need to make money; a mindset which needs changing if the centre is to remain in the public sector.
Then there is the possible mindset of the States themselves which seem to be heading towards privatisation of whatever they can get away with. Maybe this has something to do with Tribal Helm, the company brought in a while back to advise the States on how to run things.
Tribal Helm has since been taken over by the Capita Group which co-incidentally happens to make a substantial part of it’s own healthy profits from providing a wide range of services to the public sector. When you own a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
If the Island’s current set up isn’t fit for the purpose of running a business such as Beau Sejour then perhaps the set up needs changing rather than privatising which will only see any profits going into private pockets rather than back into the community coffers.
Another mindset seems to be showing itself over the creche closure in that the redundant staff are being helped to relocate within C&L or elsewhere in the States sector. An excellent idea if there are unfilled vacancies where these skills are needed but do such jobs exist or is it showing that the States rarely if ever reduce their numbers?
If Beau Sejour is overstaffed then perhaps we need to consider redundancies; a concept the private sector manages to achieve with ease.
A job in the public sector should not be for life; another idea which perhaps has yet to filter through from the private sector.
I can see why redundancies are so hard to contemplate. It’s the thin end of the wedge and only a short step to then consider the A word.
Accountability.
Something which thrives in the private sector. Do a good job and get rewarded. Do a bad job and get fired. Do a job which isn’t needed any more then get made redundant.
Why is it so hard to bring these practises to bear in the public sector?
Is it beyond the wit of those people who pull down the larger salaries to do just that and manage their relevant sectors?
Here’s a plan to sort out Beau Sejour.
Close it.
Close it and reopen it as a stand alone States assisted business which is precisely what it is at present.
Mandate it’s managers to run it for profit and allow them free rein to do just that and within two years. Hire and fire as necessary to bring this business back from the grave it seems to be in.
I say seems to be because on the face of it, Beau Sejour is a thriving and successful enterprise with over 600,000 footfalls through its doors a year. That means that on average 11,500 people go through those doors each week and that’s a lot of people.
Now either the costs of using the centre are too low or the overheads too high. Even I can work that out.
What I can’t understand is why the centre’s managers aren’t allowed to get on with their job and do whatever is necessary to return a small profit.
What is holding them back?
That is the question which needs to be asked and which needs answering in the public domain; not behind some closed door in a private meeting with stakeholders. The taxpayer is a stakeholder here and should be made aware of the issues.
Perhaps it’s time that our elected representatives did get involved with operational issues rather than being fobbed off with the “outside of your remit” excuse.
Not at the day to day nuts and bolts level but a good understanding of the effectiveness of managerial control might not be a bad thing especially if tied to some real power over hiring and firing of those who don’t seem to be able to control their departments.
Radical ideas perhaps but not as radical as throwing away a profitable business just because we can’t allow someone to run it effectively.
Friday, 23 November 2012
Killing a White Elephant
In 1982 a diver discovered the wreck of an old boat in St Peter Port harbour.
A very old boat.
A very old, rare, and large boat.
Since then the States have paid a UK based trust to preserve the timbers with a view to eventually bringing them back to Guernsey for display.
Why?
What use will this pile of old timbers be to Guernsey?
Or to put it another way, how many other worthy projects would we want to fund before this one reached the top of the list?
To be properly displayed, the timbers would need a large purpose built gallery with an environmentally controlled display case. And to what end?
So a few people could come and look at it.
This is no Cutty Sark; no magnificent sight to behold; no breathtaking once in a lifetime event. There would be no “Bilbao” effect and tourists would not flock in their thousands.
Put simply, it is not worth the money.
If it is of truly international importance then donate it to the National Maritime Museum or any other national museum who have the funds necessary to look after this find.
There is little evidence to suggest that this boat originated from Guernsey or was even built here. It does evidence that the Island was important to the Romans as part of their trading empire but once we know that, then why do we need to preserve the evidence?
I’m certain that a number of specialists will decry this attitude as philistine but we cannot presently afford to be otherwise with something which will never “wash it’s face” financially and which will cost us significant funds just to keep.
Others might see it as the thin edge of the wedge, a pathfinder for the hordes of destruction of civilisation as we know it. If we start undervaluing our past, where will it end?
Why not close all of our museums?
Why not ban all cultural events unless of course they are profitable.
Why not indeed?
We have an expensive museum service and gallery but what does it actually do?
Castle Cornet should pack in the tourists but access is and always will be a problem until something imaginative is done.
Nevertheless, it remains a jewel in St Peter Port and should be the mainstay of Guernsey’s history.
Our other museum is not so iconic and to my mind could be merged with the castle. Not such nice offices for the staff perhaps but a potential saving. Then we have our museum curators and other specialist staff needed to look after the valuable historic assets. Would we need them all if we didn’t have so much stuff to look after?
We do need to remember our history and not enough is made of the history of Guernsey. It should inform and give pride to all islanders but few know much about it as our schools must teach to a UK syllabus and for UK exams.
But knowing about and appreciating our history is not the same as venerating old objects just because they are old.
The Roman wreck was important for what it told us about the Island and the Romans but we now have that knowledge. We have precise measurements, photographs, videos, samples, and whatever else. So, why do we need to make an idol of it for future generations rather than spending the money to make life better for today’s generations?
As an Island we are running out of money.
We need to prioritise.
We need to do this as an Island and not as separate governmental departments with separate budgets to defend.
So, no funding of new projects regardless of whether it can be found from existing budget or not.
Instead, add it to the States wish list and let’s decide at the year end when we know just how much we have left over, if anything at all.
By all means, make the savings from within your department to fund your project and if it is at the top of the Island wish list come the year end, then it will happen. But if there are better things for us to spend our money on, then let’s do that instead.
A very old boat.
A very old, rare, and large boat.
Since then the States have paid a UK based trust to preserve the timbers with a view to eventually bringing them back to Guernsey for display.
Why?
What use will this pile of old timbers be to Guernsey?
Or to put it another way, how many other worthy projects would we want to fund before this one reached the top of the list?
To be properly displayed, the timbers would need a large purpose built gallery with an environmentally controlled display case. And to what end?
So a few people could come and look at it.
This is no Cutty Sark; no magnificent sight to behold; no breathtaking once in a lifetime event. There would be no “Bilbao” effect and tourists would not flock in their thousands.
Put simply, it is not worth the money.
If it is of truly international importance then donate it to the National Maritime Museum or any other national museum who have the funds necessary to look after this find.
There is little evidence to suggest that this boat originated from Guernsey or was even built here. It does evidence that the Island was important to the Romans as part of their trading empire but once we know that, then why do we need to preserve the evidence?
I’m certain that a number of specialists will decry this attitude as philistine but we cannot presently afford to be otherwise with something which will never “wash it’s face” financially and which will cost us significant funds just to keep.
Others might see it as the thin edge of the wedge, a pathfinder for the hordes of destruction of civilisation as we know it. If we start undervaluing our past, where will it end?
Why not close all of our museums?
Why not ban all cultural events unless of course they are profitable.
Why not indeed?
We have an expensive museum service and gallery but what does it actually do?
Castle Cornet should pack in the tourists but access is and always will be a problem until something imaginative is done.
Nevertheless, it remains a jewel in St Peter Port and should be the mainstay of Guernsey’s history.
Our other museum is not so iconic and to my mind could be merged with the castle. Not such nice offices for the staff perhaps but a potential saving. Then we have our museum curators and other specialist staff needed to look after the valuable historic assets. Would we need them all if we didn’t have so much stuff to look after?
We do need to remember our history and not enough is made of the history of Guernsey. It should inform and give pride to all islanders but few know much about it as our schools must teach to a UK syllabus and for UK exams.
But knowing about and appreciating our history is not the same as venerating old objects just because they are old.
The Roman wreck was important for what it told us about the Island and the Romans but we now have that knowledge. We have precise measurements, photographs, videos, samples, and whatever else. So, why do we need to make an idol of it for future generations rather than spending the money to make life better for today’s generations?
As an Island we are running out of money.
We need to prioritise.
We need to do this as an Island and not as separate governmental departments with separate budgets to defend.
So, no funding of new projects regardless of whether it can be found from existing budget or not.
Instead, add it to the States wish list and let’s decide at the year end when we know just how much we have left over, if anything at all.
By all means, make the savings from within your department to fund your project and if it is at the top of the Island wish list come the year end, then it will happen. But if there are better things for us to spend our money on, then let’s do that instead.
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Pay to Play Pt 2
C&L are revisiting the idea of privatisation of Beau Sejour so I guess I’d better do the same after my previous post earlier in the year.
http://guernsey1-2-1.blogspot.com/2012/02/pay-to-play.html
If a private company wants to take over these facilities it is because it feels it can make a good profit. There is no other reason.
So let’s pretend that we’re running BSLC and see if we can find this hidden profit.
Let’s start outside the building and with the car park which at present is free to anyone who wants to park there, users or otherwise.
Introduce a paid parking system similar to the airport, with a set free period of say two hours, which should be enough to allow all legitimate users of the centre time for their activities. Or keep the free limit at 30 minutes and allow the booking desk to extend the free period per ticket when booking a session.
With an annual footfall of some 600,000, the site must be a prime advertising centre. Can advertising revenue be boosted at all?
The theatre spends a lot of the time empty. Why not bring back the cinema but with a fully digital and large screen? Show films when the stage isn’t being used and show kids films during the holidays.
As a conference centre, BS has a lot to be desired and can’t easily compete with other spaces. Is this a market still worth pursuing? I’d find out.
The sports facilities seem incredibly popular. Are we charging at the right level?
Now this is a contentious matter and we enter the divide between running a business and providing an amenity. I’d suggest looking very carefully at this issue before moving the centre out of the price range of a lot of users.
If profit making organisations wish to use any of the centre facilities then they should pay a market rate and this includes the private schools who use the gyms and swimming pool instead of providing their own facilities.
Are all of the sports facilities fully used or is there something else that might be offered to take up spare capacity to turn a profit? I don’t know but I would find out if I was running the centre. I’d even look at non-sporting ideas if it fills spare capacity.
Is there a demand for the centres services when it is not currently open? Would this justify extended opening times?
A local garden centre has an extremely busy cafe because it has invested in decent seating and play areas. Could this be replicated here with a healthy ( and not so healthy) foods cafe which could also open in the evenings to serve theatre and cinema users?
Having tried to maximise profits whilst recognising the community amenity element of usage I would then have to look at costs.
Am I getting value for money from my staff? Can I reduce service levels (and costs) without impacting too much on the user experience?
Do I need all of my top wage earners or can we reduce the number of chiefs (if indeed there is any fat to trim, which I doubt).
Is everyone working towards the highest user service standards?
Would the centre be somewhere a tourist would want to revisit because the experience was so good?
My personal experience as a theatre goer is of understaffing in the cafe and limited service when it is actually open. Understandable when 300 people all want serving in 15 minutes and then ignore the place for the rest of their time there. Maybe I’d be tempted to spend more time (and money) if I could get a pre-show meal and entertainment? I don’t know, but it’s something I would look at.
How energy efficient is the centre?
With investment in solar panels and / or small wind turbines, can it become energy self sufficient or even perhaps sell surplus energy back to the grid?
I’d be tempted to investigate wiring up all of the exercise machines to generators to profitably use all of the energy so many people expend in the gym but maybe this is too reminiscent of prisons and treadmills!
Despite the fact that I regard the centre as a community amenity I would still want to see it run as an efficient and growth orientated business. Can it be done?
Some private companies seem to think so otherwise they wouldn’t be interested in tendering for the business.
If they can do it, why can’t the existing organisation?
Identify the barriers which are impeding the current staff and tear them down.
I’d suggest that the minister for C&L and the boss of BSLC between them should be able to do this. If not, then get one of those clever clogs from Treasury to put together a proper business plan for the centre.
Several of the above ideas involve spending money but it could be money well spent if it ensures that this vital asset is working to prime efficiency.
Do whatever it takes but do not sell the family jewels just because it is the easy option.
http://guernsey1-2-1.blogspot.com/2012/02/pay-to-play.html
If a private company wants to take over these facilities it is because it feels it can make a good profit. There is no other reason.
So let’s pretend that we’re running BSLC and see if we can find this hidden profit.
Let’s start outside the building and with the car park which at present is free to anyone who wants to park there, users or otherwise.
Introduce a paid parking system similar to the airport, with a set free period of say two hours, which should be enough to allow all legitimate users of the centre time for their activities. Or keep the free limit at 30 minutes and allow the booking desk to extend the free period per ticket when booking a session.
With an annual footfall of some 600,000, the site must be a prime advertising centre. Can advertising revenue be boosted at all?
The theatre spends a lot of the time empty. Why not bring back the cinema but with a fully digital and large screen? Show films when the stage isn’t being used and show kids films during the holidays.
As a conference centre, BS has a lot to be desired and can’t easily compete with other spaces. Is this a market still worth pursuing? I’d find out.
The sports facilities seem incredibly popular. Are we charging at the right level?
Now this is a contentious matter and we enter the divide between running a business and providing an amenity. I’d suggest looking very carefully at this issue before moving the centre out of the price range of a lot of users.
If profit making organisations wish to use any of the centre facilities then they should pay a market rate and this includes the private schools who use the gyms and swimming pool instead of providing their own facilities.
Are all of the sports facilities fully used or is there something else that might be offered to take up spare capacity to turn a profit? I don’t know but I would find out if I was running the centre. I’d even look at non-sporting ideas if it fills spare capacity.
Is there a demand for the centres services when it is not currently open? Would this justify extended opening times?
A local garden centre has an extremely busy cafe because it has invested in decent seating and play areas. Could this be replicated here with a healthy ( and not so healthy) foods cafe which could also open in the evenings to serve theatre and cinema users?
Having tried to maximise profits whilst recognising the community amenity element of usage I would then have to look at costs.
Am I getting value for money from my staff? Can I reduce service levels (and costs) without impacting too much on the user experience?
Do I need all of my top wage earners or can we reduce the number of chiefs (if indeed there is any fat to trim, which I doubt).
Is everyone working towards the highest user service standards?
Would the centre be somewhere a tourist would want to revisit because the experience was so good?
My personal experience as a theatre goer is of understaffing in the cafe and limited service when it is actually open. Understandable when 300 people all want serving in 15 minutes and then ignore the place for the rest of their time there. Maybe I’d be tempted to spend more time (and money) if I could get a pre-show meal and entertainment? I don’t know, but it’s something I would look at.
How energy efficient is the centre?
With investment in solar panels and / or small wind turbines, can it become energy self sufficient or even perhaps sell surplus energy back to the grid?
I’d be tempted to investigate wiring up all of the exercise machines to generators to profitably use all of the energy so many people expend in the gym but maybe this is too reminiscent of prisons and treadmills!
Despite the fact that I regard the centre as a community amenity I would still want to see it run as an efficient and growth orientated business. Can it be done?
Some private companies seem to think so otherwise they wouldn’t be interested in tendering for the business.
If they can do it, why can’t the existing organisation?
Identify the barriers which are impeding the current staff and tear them down.
I’d suggest that the minister for C&L and the boss of BSLC between them should be able to do this. If not, then get one of those clever clogs from Treasury to put together a proper business plan for the centre.
Several of the above ideas involve spending money but it could be money well spent if it ensures that this vital asset is working to prime efficiency.
Do whatever it takes but do not sell the family jewels just because it is the easy option.
Saturday, 9 June 2012
It's the UK but different
The last time I looked, Guernsey was still a Crown Dependency and responsible for it’s own legislation. We have a degree of independence.
So, why do we have to keep following the UK?
Roadsigns must standardise to EU norms. Sentencing in our courts is compared to the precedents set by the UK. Our schools are guided by what happens in the UK.
Why?
If we are independent then let us be so.
Let’s keep the things that make Guernsey look like Guernsey and not try to imitate some market town in the South West of England.
People come to Guernsey because it is like the UK but different. If we keep trying to make the Island the same as the UK, then we lose our unique selling point as far as the UK market is concerned.
It’s not just tourism. If we follow UK sentencing policy then we will end up with the same results as the UK and we’ve seen what a great success that has been. UK prisons overcrowded and regular disregard for the rule of law.
If we want to deter certain types of crime in Guernsey then let’s use our sentencing policy as a weapon.
Singapore has some of the toughest sentencing in the world and guess what? It also has one of the lowest crime rates. Now I’m not suggesting that we bring in capital punishment but it does seem that harsh laws breed better compliance.
Our teachers train in the UK so we tend to follow UK methods and more or less a UK curriculum. This makes sense as our students sit UK exams and tend to go to the UK for tertiary education. Basing our education system on the UK isn’t wrong but a look at international league tables will suggest that if we’re looking for excellence then we need to look a little further than just over the horizon.
Or perhaps we just accept the inevitable slide into mediocrity albeit a few years behind our role model.
So, why do we have to keep following the UK?
Roadsigns must standardise to EU norms. Sentencing in our courts is compared to the precedents set by the UK. Our schools are guided by what happens in the UK.
Why?
If we are independent then let us be so.
Let’s keep the things that make Guernsey look like Guernsey and not try to imitate some market town in the South West of England.
People come to Guernsey because it is like the UK but different. If we keep trying to make the Island the same as the UK, then we lose our unique selling point as far as the UK market is concerned.
It’s not just tourism. If we follow UK sentencing policy then we will end up with the same results as the UK and we’ve seen what a great success that has been. UK prisons overcrowded and regular disregard for the rule of law.
If we want to deter certain types of crime in Guernsey then let’s use our sentencing policy as a weapon.
Singapore has some of the toughest sentencing in the world and guess what? It also has one of the lowest crime rates. Now I’m not suggesting that we bring in capital punishment but it does seem that harsh laws breed better compliance.
Our teachers train in the UK so we tend to follow UK methods and more or less a UK curriculum. This makes sense as our students sit UK exams and tend to go to the UK for tertiary education. Basing our education system on the UK isn’t wrong but a look at international league tables will suggest that if we’re looking for excellence then we need to look a little further than just over the horizon.
Or perhaps we just accept the inevitable slide into mediocrity albeit a few years behind our role model.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Pay to play?
How much profit should a playground make?
Yes, I agree, it’s a daft question.
What about if it’s a playground for adults?
How much profit should that make?
Yes, I’m talking about our Guernsey Leisure Centre which regularly turns in a loss despite having, at times, one of the busiest car parks in the Island.
How can something so popular not make a profit?
Because, of course, it is not a business but a public amenity. It is there for the benefit of the people of Guernsey.
Now I speak as one who decries this Island’s obsession with sport and the over the top attention sport gets from the media. But even I can see the benefits of lots of people of all ages staying healthy and staying out of our hospitals.
The centre is also regularly used by theatre groups and concert artists. So it’s not just for sports fans. The centre fulfils community needs. It improves our quality of life.
But if we can’t make a profit on it, why don’t we just privatise it, take our money and run?
Now why would any sane business person want to buy something if they couldn’t make a profit from it?
Could we sell off Beau Sejour?
I’m certain that we could.
I am equally certain that someone else could, and would, make a profit from it. Jobs would be cut and prices raised. And for who’s benefit?
Why privatise something just to benefit some anonymous company and it’s shareholders?
Privatisation is the wrong answer to a question which shouldn’t be asked in the first place.
Let’s leave C&L to run the centre as efficiently as they can and accept that getting profit from a playground is just asking the wrong question.
Yes, I agree, it’s a daft question.
What about if it’s a playground for adults?
How much profit should that make?
Yes, I’m talking about our Guernsey Leisure Centre which regularly turns in a loss despite having, at times, one of the busiest car parks in the Island.
How can something so popular not make a profit?
Because, of course, it is not a business but a public amenity. It is there for the benefit of the people of Guernsey.
Now I speak as one who decries this Island’s obsession with sport and the over the top attention sport gets from the media. But even I can see the benefits of lots of people of all ages staying healthy and staying out of our hospitals.
The centre is also regularly used by theatre groups and concert artists. So it’s not just for sports fans. The centre fulfils community needs. It improves our quality of life.
But if we can’t make a profit on it, why don’t we just privatise it, take our money and run?
Now why would any sane business person want to buy something if they couldn’t make a profit from it?
Could we sell off Beau Sejour?
I’m certain that we could.
I am equally certain that someone else could, and would, make a profit from it. Jobs would be cut and prices raised. And for who’s benefit?
Why privatise something just to benefit some anonymous company and it’s shareholders?
Privatisation is the wrong answer to a question which shouldn’t be asked in the first place.
Let’s leave C&L to run the centre as efficiently as they can and accept that getting profit from a playground is just asking the wrong question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)