PDA

View Full Version : Computer Weekly exposes UK Gov / Microsoft deal



fatality_uk
June 3rd, 2009, 01:28 PM
Once again, Microsoft slowly raises the arm of the UK tax payer further and further up it's back till you can almost hear the crack.

Having been locked into previous 3 year deal in which Microsoft claimed over 100,000,000 in savings, 74,000,000 of which would come from "productivity savings" whatever that means. The savings figure comes directly from Microsoft as the UK gov either did not have, or did not want adequate metrics to measure the "savings"

They are now trying to tie down the UK tax payer to a 5-7 year deal in which volumes licenses will be predetermined, i.e. the UK will agree to buy X number of licenses, even if we don't need them.

Bill Gates was said to have been personally involved with the previous deal helping to negotiating directly with then then chancellor, Gordon Brown.


Additional information:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/05/07/235924/government-aims-to-save-75m-in-microsoft-deal.htm

I have emailed Angela Eagle,(exchequer secretary to the Treasury) one of the ministers responsible for this latest deal and asked for a breakdown of the costs http://www.angelaeaglemp.co.uk/

I have also asked how savings will be measured going forward and if and how the process of tendering for UK contracts like this will be dealt with in the future?

In this age of UK political openness, I do hope that the date can be found else I will take it further with another MP.

benj1
June 3rd, 2009, 01:57 PM
I have emailed Angela Eagle,(exchequer secretary to the Treasury) one of the ministers responsible for this latest deal and asked for a breakdown of the costs http://www.angelaeaglemp.co.uk/

thats if she hasn't resigned, i hope she isn't claiming for that house on the website :).

really i don't know where they get these figure from, although looking at some of the IT projects the govt has developed itself its not quite so fanciful.

fatality_uk
June 3rd, 2009, 02:05 PM
thats if she hasn't resigned, i hope she isn't claiming for that house on the website :).

really i don't know where they get these figure from, although looking at some of the IT projects the govt has developed itself its not quite so fanciful.

Government IT projects are laughable. For instance, each member of parliament receives at least an annual budget of 10,000 for web site design and hosting (Communications Allowance)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6502331.stm

So that is at least 6,350,000 on web site design and hosting annually for 635 MP's. Yet again, the UK parliament, MP's of all political leanings, have no concept of how to run and IT systems.

Johnsie
June 3rd, 2009, 02:07 PM
I emailed them introducing myself as a taxpayer and asking them various questions about their policy towards free software. I also asked them to show examples of how the current government has used free software to save money.

At the end I said:



I think it is now time for the government to be transparent about their finances, including the costs of software licensing, especially as there are a lot of very capable free software products available.



I think licensing costs are something we should really be pushing the government to open up on. Especially as they are already in trouble over other finances. Maybe this is an opportunity for us to push the government into using open source software, rather than spending taxpayers money on over priced licensing.

fatality_uk
June 3rd, 2009, 02:16 PM
Could well be Johnsie. I understand there are situations where a Microsoft product would be the best fit, but there seems to be little or no understanding in the UK Gov about the fact there may be options.

Seeing as I am currently getting "caned" by huge taxes across the board, I deserve answers and so do you.

Johnsie
June 3rd, 2009, 02:30 PM
Exactly. I don't expect a decent response, but at least someone out there will find out out about free and open software and maybe start to think about it a little.

I am also paying a truckload of tax and it all seems to be going to people who don't pay tax. Too much money is being wasted across the board, not just in the IT sector.

benj1
June 3rd, 2009, 02:31 PM
well i sent her an email asking how the deal"reinforces the government's commitment to its Open Source Action Plan".

can't wait for the answer from that one.

monsterstack
June 3rd, 2009, 02:35 PM
Wow. So now we're going to get a quota of Windows licences as opposed to working on a supply and demand model. The UK Government fails at capitalism, it seems.

Johnsie
June 3rd, 2009, 02:44 PM
The UK government seems to mix capitalism and socialism. Sometimes it works, but most of the time there is over spending and very little efficiency. Departments are spending money on things they don't need and attempting to justify it by using twisted office-speak. No the scones and tea at the meeting were not necessary, that Windmill on the roof may make you look eco-friendly, but it costs the taxpayer 20,000, has a lifetime of 15 years and would oddly take 25 years to buy itself back! To be honest I would prefer if the government was made alot smaller and more considerate with their spending.

monsterstack
June 3rd, 2009, 02:52 PM
The UK government seems to mix capitalism and socialism. Sometimes it works, but most of the time there is over spending and very little efficiency. Departments are spending money on things they don't need.

Y'huh. I don't think any modern nation practises full laissez-faire capitalism at all. You should see the reaction from people who think "socialism" is a dirty word when you remind them that they pay taxes which gets spent on roads, hospitals, schools and so on. It positively makes their heads explode.

But seriously, the UK government has been pissing money away for years on stuff we don't need. The PFI schemes are probably the worst offender for that. I loved the part where Angela Eagle claims this deal helps the open-source plans. It's spin at its brilliant, Orwellian best.

Johnsie
June 3rd, 2009, 03:01 PM
Over here it takes several hours to get seen to in an NHS (taxpayer funded) hospital. When I was visiting the US I needed to go to hospital for something relatively minor and was seen to in about 20 minutes. I couldn't believe it.

I'd rather my employer pay for private insurance than national insurance. People here think the NHS is better because it's 'free' but actually taxpayers are paying through the nose for it when they could be going private for around the same price.

I don't mind paying tax, but only if the services are run efficiently.

mofrikaantje
June 3rd, 2009, 03:03 PM
The famous third-way fails, this time on the software front... Very bitter for socialists (such as me) who don't believe in the omnipotence of the free market...

mofrikaantje
June 3rd, 2009, 03:06 PM
Over here it takes several hours to get seen to in an NHS (taxpayer funded) hospital. When I was visiting the US I needed to go to hospital for something relatively minor and was seen to in about 20 minutes. I couldn't believe it.

I'd rather my employer pay for private insurance than national insurance. People here think the NHS is better because it's 'free' but actually taxpayers are paying through the nose for it when they could be going private for around the same price.

I don't mind paying tax, but only if the services are run efficiently.
Public ownership of e.g. healthcare companies and transportation doesn't lead automatically to bad services, on the contrary. I'm not saying we/Britain should head towards a communist system, but we do have to admit that the healthcare (for example) in Cuba and the Soviet Union is/was among the best in the world - and accessible to everyone. And another example: didn't your train services get a lot worse and more expensive because of the free market with private companies? :)

ukripper
June 3rd, 2009, 03:11 PM
Another ****-up and taxpayers are tissue-wiping their bottoms again.

monsterstack
June 3rd, 2009, 03:13 PM
Over here it takes several hours to get seen to in an NHS (taxpayer funded) hospital. When I was visiting the US I needed to go to hospital for something relatively minor and was seen to in about 20 minutes. I couldn't believe it.

I'd rather my employer pay for private insurance than national insurance. People here think the NHS is better because it's 'free' but actually taxpayers are paying through the nose for it when they could be going private for around the same price.

I don't mind paying tax, but only if the services are run efficiently.

Ah, yes, but in the UK we have both public and private hospitals. More employers offering healthcare plans would be brilliant, though. I think having free hospitals is a very important safety net for those who desperately need it the most.

I get very annoyed when the Government wastes our taxes on things. People look to private companies as a remedy, but in reality we often end up paying more of our tax pounds because many of these companies can't run themselves properly. Case in point, trains. Under British Rail, we had more trains, more carriages, more services, more ushers, more ticket conductors, more engineers, more trains on time, less delays, less cancellations and massively cheaper tickets, and at a cost that was a third of what we pay now to subsidise the privatised rail networks.

benj1
June 3rd, 2009, 03:22 PM
Over here it takes several hours to get seen to in an NHS (taxpayer funded) hospital. When I was visiting the US I needed to go to hospital for something relatively minor and was seen to in about 20 minutes. I couldn't believe it.

I'd rather my employer pay for private insurance than national insurance. People here think the NHS is better because it's 'free' but actually taxpayers are paying through the nose for it when they could be going private for around the same price.

I don't mind paying tax, but only if the services are run efficiently.

erm what happens if your employer doesn't pay health insurance, or you don't have a job, what happens if youre retired and the company that was paying your health insurance goes bust. nearly every civilised country on earth has some kind government sponsored health system, are they all wrong. peoples access to healthcare shouldn't be dictated by their ability to pay.
ps how much was your insurance company charged for your relatively minor injury?

anyway back on topic.