I read a slightly odd article today. It was in that popular rag Computer World UK.
It contained two sentences that while not in themselves contradictory, were certainly juxtaposed.
First, the story’s headline:
G-Cloud achieving 50% savings on average.
And later, this:
Some organisations have saved 50 percent on previous costs for IT services, according to [Tony] Singleton.
I don’t have the data. But these two sentences are far from tautological. Nor is either as mind-blowing as it might at first read.
Let’s take them separately and in order.
If G-Cloud supported 10 deals, the first five reducing costs from £1,000 to £100; and the other five reducing costs from £100m to £90m, then G-Cloud has achieved 50% savings on average. Five deals came in with a 90% saving; the other five came in with a 10% saving. ((5 * 10%) + (5 * 90%)) / 10 = 50%.
In this example, the total saving is 10.0008%. But the headline is grander.
And now to the second. Some organisations have saved over 50%. This is basically saying that two or more organisations have done better than halving their costs. Two organisation may have each cut costs from £1,000 to £400, with every other organisation’s spend dwarfing these two organisations’ spend, all bringing in trivial relative savings.
None of the other statistics in the article gave further clarity on the savings achieved. But a bogus spelling of the word “received” certainly made me question its journalistic credibility, perhaps unfairly.
It’d be good to get hold of the data set used to inform the assertions.
On Saturday, the last day of the 2013–14 tax year, I received a letter. It was from David Cameron, our prime minister, and it introduced me to the Employment Allowance, which as a small business owner could save me up to £2,000 per year. (It won’t. But that’s by the by.)
Here is a full transcript of that letter.
I was annoyed. Deeply annoyed. And this was for a couple of reasons.
First, the letterhead was that of 10 Downing Street. Now HMRC contacts me quite regularly to tell me about entitlements, my obligations, changes to my tax status, how much I owe, how much I am owed (rarely), their losses of my data etc. But never before to my recollection has any such communication come from the headquarters of Her Majesty’s Government.
My view is that this is an official change to tax legislation that has a potential impact on me as a small business owner (owner of a small business, not a business owner of diminutive stature). As such, it should come from HMRC, the people who are responsible for the administration and coordination of my tax affairs. It should not come from the prime minister’s office.
Next, the letter was signed by David Cameron. (Or at least a scanned version of his signature appeared at the base of the letter.) My view is that this should come from a civil servant, not from a politician. This is not a political matter. When HMRC allegedly lost some CDs containing my data, along with that of all other child benefit claimants, I received a letter from Dave Hartnett, then permanent secretary of HMRC, not the minister of the day.
Third, the marketing spiel.
Britain has been through some very tough years. We endured one of the biggest bank bailouts in the world and the deepest recession in generations. For businesses and charities like yours, on the frontline of the economy, we know it has been especially difficult.
We came into Government with a long term economic plan to rescue the economy.
Thanks to your hard work, we are now seeing the results. A private-sector recovery with the economy growing, jobs being created, and confidence reaching new highs. Businesses are saying to us they want to invest, grow, and take on new people. The Employment Allowance is about helping you to do that.
This is the main bit that made me put pen to paper. This is a letter being paid for by me, the taxpayer. And it is being sent by Mr. Cameron, who holds two primary positions: prime minister of the United Kingdom; and leader of the Conservative Party. If the letter had been sent from him in his position as prime minister of the UK, then that is fine and dandy. But the three paragraphs above strike me as having been written more by the leader of the Conservative Party.
They are marketing through-and-through. They are intended to make me feel fantastic about the good work that the current government is doing. They are intended to make me vote Conservative at the next election.
I resent the fact that Cameron is using taxpayers’ money to make a political statement. It’s so blatant and goes entirely against the ethos of government.
(As an aside, David, my view is that front line should be two words; long-term as an adjective should be hyphenated, and private sector should not be hyphenated, even when used as an adjective within a sentence that’s not a sentence. (A colon would have been a much more welcome introduction to that little clause now, wouldn’t it?))