Sunday 27 June 2010

The Definition Of Insanity…

…is said to be doing something the same way over and over, hoping for a different result:

The authority has already won a court victory against Vaf construction firm Banner Holdings, but fears it will not get the money after Banner appealed and then went into administration.

The original plan was to put some of the millions of pounds claimed from Banner towards suing Turner and Townsend.

But with the Banner cash in serious doubt, officials are now looking to use residents’ tax money instead.

Why not? Nothing better for a compulsive gambler than to be given someone else’s credit card, after all…

Paul Smith, councillor with responsibility for the Vaf, said: “It was always anticipated we would have to take legal action against more than one party involved.

“Initially we were hoping to get compensation from Banner which would have funded action against Turner and Townsend, but due to Banner’s administration, we may not recover all our costs.”

No reason not to roll those dice again, eh, Paul?

The plan to put aside £500,000 for the claim comes as councils across the country face huge budget pressures. It also comes after the council has already poured millions into the Vaf.

If the scheme is passed by the cabinet, the whole council will have to approve it as it involves taking cash from reserves and spending money that would normally go on services.

Which I imagine will go down like a cold cup of sick with your taxpayers, but what are they going to do, throw you out of office?

Hey, that’s not a bad idea…

Still, it’s one more thing to bear in mind when the left start their inevitable whining about vital services being cut ‘because of the Budget!’, isn’t it?
Mr Smith said the legal action was a calculated risk as the council might lose and could even be made to pay costs. He added: “Our legal advice is we have got a good case.”
Well, sure they did. They get paid anyway, so they’ve nothing to lose!

Unlike the poor council taxpayer…


Brian, follower of Deornoth said...

O, happy town, to have such a jackass for a councillor.

David Gillies said...

You know what would be an interesting experiment? Survey every person in local government with their hands on the kind of cash necessary to conjure up this 'Vaf' or its regional equivalent, and ask them to define, off the cuff, no running to Google, the concept of 'sunk costs'. My guess is fewer than 3 in ten thousand could even have a stab at it.

JuliaM said...

"O, happy town, to have such a jackass for a councillor."

I bet he gets reelected though.

"My guess is fewer than 3 in ten thousand could even have a stab at it."

I think you may well be right. About time they were made liable for their decisions.