UKC

Some ideas up for consideration on the Government's "what can we do to save money" website

http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/how-can-we-rethink-public-servi...
http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/how-can-we-rethink-public-servi...
http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/how-can-we-rethink-public-servi...

In reply to Toreador: Cool idea. At least that way the RNLI and MRT would get some extra revenue. As they currently aren't funded by tax, it isn't going to save the country any money is it?

In reply to Toreador:

While they make intresting ideas how would it be policed? How would you check everyone who goes up Snowdon on thier holidays has insurance covering rescue?

The likelyhood is that those who regularly participate in mountain activities are better equiped to manage difficult situations or acidents and would not necesarrily need need helicopter rescue from a mountain haveing gone up ill prepared.

Also this centers around helicopters rescuing climbers. It must pointed out that the helicopters also go out to rescue holiday makers on beaches, cliffs and those who float out to sea on thier lilo. Should thease people also carry rescue insurance?

And my last point reference the first URL, insurance is subject to IPT, insurance premium tax, not VAT and is currently charged at 5% and will soon go up to 6% in 2011.

In reply to Tree:

Yes, they did rather miss that didn't they. Although, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that the RNLI didn't want government funding, so they could operate under their own remit?

In reply to Toreador:

The cost of rescue should be funded by a moron tax, Whereby all the dullards who flap on about the cost to the UK taxpayer of mountain rescue teams and RNLI are in effect fined for the obvious flaw in their spittle flecked argument.

In reply to Toreador: They are nice ideas, but I can't help feeling that participants of such activities would end up paying much more in insurance than the government spends on rescue services. Hence the government might be better off, but all the people who do these activities would be significantly worse off.

If we lived in a world where the government did nothing and we had to pay for every service we used, we would not have enough cash left over to have the rubbish taken away.

In reply to Toreador:

I have been told that the way it should be is that if you can drive to the incident by vehicle on public roads, you should not have to have insurance, even if you end up having to be taken by air to hospital. If the incident happens beyond the extent of the road network, you need insurance. Unbelievably, this was from an intelligent, articulate person, who maybe less surprisingly, does virtually no exercise, and whose sense of adventure extends to staying in a hotel with less tv channels than they can get at home...

In reply to John Rushby:

That's made my day

In reply to Tree:

It's amazing* how many people think that mountain rescue is funded by the tax payer.

There are also a few suggestions for combining the ambulance, fire, and mountain rescue services in order to save money by pooling training and equipment costs.

* OK, maybe not that amazing when you consider the circulation figures of the tabloids.

In reply to Toreador:

Same with air ambulances. I was shocked when I found out YAA is self funded and has to generate £6k a day to keep they helicoptors in the sky

In reply to Toreador:
"It's amazing* how many people think that mountain rescue is funded by the tax payer."
perhaps it needs to be made clear when there are stories in the press about people being rescued exactly how these services are funded.

In reply to Tree:

the navy and the raf do alot of civilian rescues as well though dont they?

In reply to EasyAndy: Correct and they love it! It offers their crews training which is as about as good as it can get without going into combat. Also it's a nice service which they can pay the civilian community and gets them involved with the civilian community.

In reply to Toreador:

Think i will make an entry saying:

I think we should shoot all the stupid people, would save if not money at least a lot of good oxygen.

I'm surprised they don't want people to have insurance before they walk out the door, they could fall and break a leg and end if hospital, and we all know how much the NHS cost us, but guess this is already happening anyway.

In reply to Rich Jones: I think your very correct, they do love it.......and lets not forget its the general public (climbers and hillwalkers included) who help pay the fuel for RAF to float in the sky (most of the time pointlessly..)Dont get me wrong, I think they re great but this government fixation on making the public pay for services that we SHOULD ordinarily expect to receive as a tax payer grips my......Blame the bwankers

Can you need leave comments on this idea thing?

In reply to Toreador: The helicopters used in mountain rescues are funded by the tax payer. Whether we agree with it or not mountain rescue will not remain free forever. Insurance is not expensive. My wife and I pay £109 for the both of us for multi trip insurance and includes up to multi pitch lead climbing throughout Europe

In reply to icnoble:

They are indeed. And of course would could exactly the same even if they never helped with rescues (of walkers, climbers, or sheep).


Why not? The current system works pretty well.


And if you check the policy details you will probably find that the UK is excluded from most provisions.

In reply to icnoble: How much do you think that premium will go up when your insurance company has to actually pay for UK rescues?

Also re RAF/RNAS(?) rescues, find out how much the hourly costs are for training exercises I suspect that the real life training offered by civilian rescues offers good value for money.

Incidentally a significant number of the incidents that are carried out in the Highlands and Islands have nothing to do with the hills, but are road accidents and medical emergencies.

Steve D

In reply to Milesy:

No, but if you register you can vote.

It's all a massive PR thing, the chances of any policy being adopted that wouldn't have been adopted anyway are pretty much zero, and the biggest cost saving available would be to close the website down. But they'll be able to use the 'consultation' exercise to support their decisions, so it's probably worth voting anyway.

In reply to Toreador: I visited one of the coastguard stations while I was diving regularly and was appalled to hear how much it costs to launch a search and rescue mission if a diver goes missing - it was put into perspective by the coastguards themselves who said that the RAF (who are frequently called in to do search and rescues)would be running training missions anyway and so look on it as a valuable exercise

In reply to Toreador: There are some good comedy suggestions on there too -

http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/how-can-we-rethink-public-servi...

In reply to Will Sheaff: and then there is also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/

"We want to restore Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness, and free our society of unnecessary laws and regulations ...
This site gives you the chance to tell us which laws and regulations you think we should get rid of."

Some naughty people have been having fun demanding things like the repeal of the Third Law of Thermodynamics

In reply to EasyAndy:

There was a letter in Scotland on Sunday in the early 90's by an Air Vice Marshall laying out how the expenditure was already a sunk cost due to Britains international obligations to provide air sea rescue. Also he laid out how training hours were converted to ops hours, basically the teams would have been in the air anyway. Net additional cost to the taxpayer.....zero. Wish it was online as it was the perfect answer to every moron that thinks rescue of hillwalkers and climbers is a burden on society.

In reply to Toreador:


The Scottish mountain rescue teams are part funded by the taxpayer.

Which is just as well, as it is the MRT that rescue down mineshafts when the fire service are prevented by it's own H&S regulations.

In reply to Toreador:
I'm a bit unclear how the voting works. You can rate it from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) and it appears to then average the votes. Fine, except that even a vote of 1 seems to be a vote in favour. Even a 1-star idea looks better than one with no votes. It would be better if you could actually vote against an idea so that votes against cancelled out an equivalent number of votes for.

In reply to Howard J:

It's badly done all round really. The hover text says 1 is poor, 2 is fair, 3 is good, 4 very good, and 5 excellent - so four generally positive options, and just one negative. Which means that any average score will be weighted towards the positive side.

In reply to Toreador:
I always buy a copy of the Langdale MRT yearbook when I'm up there - it's a great read.

What you realise is how few of the incidents are climbing related, around 5%. And amongst the hillwalkers it's mostly the people who wander out of the car park without maps, torches or sensible shoes that get rescued. And they aren't going to think they need insurance if they don't think they need a map etc.

The problem is that your average Daily Mail reader - yes it's a cliche, but you know thats the sort of paper which screams out for this every winter - sees a climber on a rock face and his brain goes into meltdown

"You wouldn't get me up there, it looks dangerous"
"How on earth is he going to get down"
"He hasn't moved for 5 minutes, he's going to need rescuing"
"Who's going to pay for that rescue ?"
"ME. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT NUTTER TO BE RESCUED"
"WHERE ARE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM - TOO BUSY CANCELLING CHRISTMAS TO KEEP MUSLIMS HAPPY"
"THIS MUST BE BANNED BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT"