Given the UK's track record; - The NHS - Child Support 2004 - new passport systems 1999 - Heathrow airport terminal 5 - Universal Credit and - a world-beating Track and Trace system I'm sure that there are loads of other examples of govt IT failure Better dig out that roadmap
Galileo operating system which the E.U currently use was designed in the uk. it even has inbuilt features as a spy satellite which have not been activated yet and cannot be by the EU who incidentally have still not paid for the technology yet
Not forgetting the Air Craft Carriers with no aircraft, one will be ready we are told for inaction shortly, stand by for a world tour, if they can hire a tugboat.
God help us if they put Chris Grayling in charge of it. He gave a seaborne freight contract to a company that had no ships in case of a no deal brexit. He privatised the probation service then had to take it back in house after re-offending rates rocketed. Had to pay the contract up in full at a cost of £171 million. One man has single handedly wasted almost a quarter of a billion £££'s of tax payers money on vanity projects that didn't work. A suspicious person would think there was something in it for Mr. Grayling somewhere.
As long as the government have nothing to do with it, it'll be brilliant. If the government are the ones handing out contracts to their donation mates, it'll be ****ing useless.
I always find it remarkable with Galileo that the Chinese were let in on the ground floor during its early development, but the UK leaving the EU now somehow causes 'security concerns'.
actually the project is already heading for an early grave : https://www.theguardian.com/science...back-plans-for-independent-satnav-report-says and the Chinese have just completed their own new system.
It's probably the realisation (finally) that we're highly unlikely to ever lose access to the high accuracy GPS, so why spend the money.
Doesn't quite work like that. GPS (and all the other positioning systems) deliver different levels of accuracy depending on who you are. GPS "free service" will get you within 5-10m, usually not as good as this. Pay a lot of money, e.g. if you are a surveyor, and you can get down to cm level, and you can't pay for the extra features that the armed forces and other government departments get. This is why investments are made into new systems, to get new features that can be sold and others that can be kept for "special purposes." Is it worth it for the UK to build it's own or just pay for what it needs from other providers? That all depends on how much revenue it will lose by not having anything to sell, and what can't be bought or traded for.
You highlight the flaw in the system here. Putting ANY politician OR Civil Servant in charge of commissioning any spending project, large or small, is almost guaranteed to result in failure. Neither group is likely to have the skills required and unlike The Private Sector there are no shareholders to hold them to account. There are of course Parliamentary Audit Commitee's, made up of other politicians (who would like to be promoted to decision making Ministerial Rank) and who are advised by Civil Servants. Those of you, old enough to remember 'Yes Minister' will recall how they accurately depicted how the system worked then. There is no reason to think that anything has changed in the interim. (There was one particular good episode of Yes Minister where one of Hakers advisors suggested a protocol to be applied to any project that would involve expenditure over X £millions. At the outset figures would establish what would be success and what would constitute failure. At each stage there would be set benchmarks for expenditure. Exceeding these indicated FAILURE. Responsibilty would be apportioned. Lessons learned would be applied. Jim was delighted. Why hasn't this been submitted before he asked the advisor. It has came the reply. Then why wasn't it taken up, asks Jim. It always gets rejected said the forlorn advisor. 'You see Minister, I'm an Expert'. ----------------- There is an established system in Parliament called Ministerial responsibilty. It rarely holds though. No minister can project manage any venture. He hasn't the time and rarely the expertise. That bit is left to the Civil Service and they have no experience. It was little better with the Nationalised Industries, when we had them. With the comfort of The Public Purse behind them there was little incentive be efficient. And however bad Goverment can be gets magnified if you could add all the local councils together. I think that the addage, 'couldn't orgaise a p155 up in a brewery came into being just to cover their antics.
I don't disagree that Grayling was not the best Transport Secretary, but I always qualify any criticism of a Minister by reminding myself that he has a team, a very well paid and supposedly experienced team of Civil Servants who are supposed to advise him and guide him and implement the decisions made. None of these people would have been selected by the Minister, they would be assigned by the fatter cat civil servants. He, like all Ministers, is one person, often only with a political background, and should never be solely blamed for failures. I would like to know how many Civil Servants were sacked for these failures, I can guarantee none were. They were moved on or promoted sideways.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde "To lose one project (parent) may be seen as unfortunate. To lose both seems like downright carelessness". Or to paraphrase Nelson "I see no (freight) ships".Even a blind man can see that a company that has no ships CANNOT ship goods over the channel in the event of a no deal "brexit". An infinite amount of incompetent Civil Servants would not make a judgement as stupid as that. If a taxi driver turned up at my door and he did not have a car I very much doubt that I would pay him the fare.
I would bow to your superior rhetoric, IF there was any possibility that the Minister in charge had ANY chance of taking incompetent civil servants to task effectively. They can shout and rave but they cannot dismiss. The civil service is untouchable, and yes, the rot starts at the top, but the top is the likes of Sedwill, Sir Sedwill says it all.
The buck stops with Grayling. First question I would ask if I was a Minister in charge of giving a multi million £££ freight shipping contract is "How many ships have they got?". I would not need the "advice" of anybody to ask that question. I do not have the benefit of private education or further education (apart from technical college) I would ask that question because it is blindingly obvious. That is not "rhetoric" it is common sense.
I'm no sort of expert in the transport business, but I believe that both Ships and Aircraft are often leased. The last time I even glanced at this part of industry, admitedly some time ago, both Ships and Aircraft were stacked up, just waiting for some kind soul to come along and hire them. So, without being able to comment on your specific post I believe that a moderately competant, experienced business person with sufficent finacial support should be able to do that job. And to use your own example, if a Taxi driver arrived at your door would you care if his taxi was owned by the driver, or leased, or provided by the company who own the service. Your only concern would be his ability to drive you to where you need to go. In a similar way if the person/people/ organisation granted the contract can arrange to fullfil the terms, by leasing or whatever, that's the only relavent thing. Since they were probably recomended by The Civil Servis though your doubts may well be justified.
These type of people usually haven't had a close association with the real world for decades mind. The unsackable civil service plus someone who's probably never had a proper job. what's blindingly obvious to us comes as a complete surprise to them.
Okay, I am a painter and decorator. If I turned up to paint your house and had no brushes or rollers would you employ me on that basis?
Your original premis seems flawed to me. You memtioned Taxis at some point. Many Taxi company's run on a mixture of the owners vehicles rented out to drivers and drivers who own their own vehicles and pay a 'rent' for the use of the Company's name and faccilities. The owner of the company often doesn't own any vehicles at all. He rents out his faccilities to qualified drivers who come with their own vehicles. My point, however badly made, is that it would not be necceccary to own ships to be capable of successfuly completing this venture. Far more importand would be having the neccessary experience and expertise to complete the contract. Whether they have these qualities I haven't a clue. Where we appear to differ (regularly), is that I dislike all politician and you save your dislike for only one party. Fair enough but even I have to admit that not everything that the Tory party does is wrong and it has been glaringly obvious that by no means everything that the Labour Party does is right. Having said that I have high hopes of Sir Kier who, to date, has made a good start.
