That it doesn't matter that the saving is trivial. I think it's a signal of one of two things: Either they want a popular committee dependent on their income and easy to manipulate. Or we're to see lots of savings at any cost at any opportunity. That's what I meant by "losing less" - not a truism, but a beginning of doing anything and everything to reach breakeven. And lots of it will be stupid and not make a difference apart from making things just a bit worse.
You make no comments on the impact of this choice beyond the nominal cost savings. Or does your lack of comment signal your perspective?
What even is your point?