Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Wed May 22, 2013 5:00 pm  

Thank god Kelvin is no ideologue and it's just the rest of us, eh?

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Wed May 22, 2013 5:05 pm  

IIRC - and fortunately it is not an ideological position - the Ferret also has no problem with people who work not being paid enough to live. He says - again, IIRC - that it's up to the taxpayer whether they get help to do that basic living stuff.

Quite apart from being utter economic illiteracy, given the nature of our economy, it does rather suggest a sort of nasty 'couldn't give a poop about my fellow human beings' approach, which - and this could just be me - seems lacking in a certain amount of morality and, indeed, enlightened self interest.

I note, too, that Kelvin has not responded to comments illustrating instances where privatisation has simply mean vastly hiked prices, whether for the private individual (utilities) or the state (PFI). But, let's not forget, the question of whether there is any private profit in services is utterly irrelevant.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Wed May 22, 2013 5:06 pm  

And this on a day when that bunch of lefties, the IMF, again had a pop at Osborne's failing policies.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Wed May 22, 2013 5:26 pm  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

...
Those who are ideologically opposed to public services being delivered by private companies struggle with the contradiction that if the people responsible for commissioning an outsourced service are not capable of negotiating and managing an external contract, why should we believe them capable of managing the same service internally? ...

This really is an irrelevance, not least because the preparation of an outsourcing contract is in no way similar to actually running the service, so someone can have been running a service perfectly well but could well be unaware of potential pitfalls in a contract.
I speak as someone who has provided outsourced services for more than a decade.

There is no contradiction with which to struggle.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Thu May 23, 2013 10:21 am  

Mintball wrote:

IIRC - and fortunately it is not an ideological position - the Ferret also has no problem with people who work not being paid enough to live. He says - again, IIRC - that it's up to the taxpayer whether they get help to do that basic living stuff.

Quite apart from being utter economic illiteracy, given the nature of our economy, it does rather suggest a sort of nasty 'couldn't give a poop about my fellow human beings' approach, which - and this could just be me - seems lacking in a certain amount of morality and, indeed, enlightened self interest.

It's this kind of idiotic poo that makes discussing things with you pointless, you decide for me what my views are (regardless of what they actually are), and then you rail against what you've decided my views are. My views (and for clarity mine and not the ones you've so graciously granted me) are deeply sceptical about paternalistic and statist behaviour because it never can consider the consequences fully let alone acknowledge them. You’re emotive and “moralistic” criticisms are not a substitute for the consistent, coherent and realistic competing theory you don’t have, a theory that is capable of addressing all the holes, downsides and unintended consequences of your sloppy thinking.

Maybe one day you can introduce me to the omniscient , paragon of morality, enlightened depot whose motives are beyond question and then I’ll be able to put my nit picking about the gaping holes to one side?

Mintball wrote:

I note, too, that Kelvin has not responded to comments illustrating instances where privatisation has simply mean vastly hiked prices, whether for the private individual (utilities) or the state (PFI). But, let's not forget, the question of whether there is any private profit in services is utterly irrelevant.

What do you want me to do? Should we address every anecdote where contracted or outsourced services have gone wrong and presumably, for the sake of completeness and thoroughness, we should do this in the vast context of everyday reality where such contracts and outsourced delivery work perfectly well day in day out? Do you think we’ll get time to discuss anecdotes about where in-house services go wrong, and just for completeness we’ll also do that against the backdrop of where they do?

If you read what I’ve written carefully you will see that I don’t support outsourcing for the sake of it, but as a practical reality, where it delivers economies of scale against the finite resources provided by other people’s money it often makes sense. Yes, I think it is fine if someone can make a profit by delivering an efficient and well managed public service that also means less of taxpayer's (i.e. other people's) money being spent. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean there isn’t a strong long-term case in favour, just because you haven’t researched all the discussion, analysis and debate that genuinely does go with the awarding of contracts doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Thu May 23, 2013 10:28 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

This really is an irrelevance, not least because the preparation of an outsourcing contract is in no way similar to actually running the service, so someone can have been running a service perfectly well but could well be unaware of potential pitfalls in a contract.
I speak as someone who has provided outsourced services for more than a decade.

There is no contradiction with which to struggle.

I work with outsourced services on daily basis and I've seen good and bad implementation, for me bad implementation is a sign of bad management, of too little understanding of the the service involved or perverse incentives. But bad management is bad management end of, it doesn't become good because they're dealing with in-house. The only saving grace in the favour of in-house is that in-house employees may be more inclined to work around bad management.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Thu May 23, 2013 10:43 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

It's this kind of idiotic poo that makes discussing things with you pointless, you decide for me what my views are ...

I have, previously and quite specifically, asked you about the issue of low wages that leave people struggling to live even basically. Your response has been that it's 'up to the British public'. It is not up to employers to pay a living wage, but to 'the British public' to decide what – if anything – should be done about low pay.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Thu May 23, 2013 11:20 am  

Despite what KF has to say, I started this thread to point out the lack of responsibility of private service providers and those public servants tasked with overseeing them. One major clause in the the NHS proposals is that the Secretary of State for Health will no longer bear the ultimate responsibility for any shortcomings in the NHS.

Look at what has previously happened with East Coast Mainline (twice) and Railtrack. The private "service" providers are happy to take the profits but as soon as losses become apparent, they hand the shooting match back to the state. Any "efficiencies" usually come at the expense of jobs, pay scales or service to the public, quite often a combination of all three. When new contracts are issues to staff, it is usually left to the public purse to continue topping-up their remuneration through housing benefit and tax credits. They're then left with less disposable income to spend in the economy, so everyone, apart from the service providers loses.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Thu May 23, 2013 1:21 pm  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

The long-term reality of both central and local government finance is that unless you subscribe to a level of statism the vast majority of the British public baulk at the options are limited to driving efficiency, we have an ageing population, so fewer taxpayers will have to support more claims on the state in the long term. In reality that means looking for economies of scale that individual local authorities (even big ones) can struggle to deliver, or simply not doing some things.

But that isnt a problme being solved by privatisation is it. It is just privatisation and delivering a lesser service.

See my response above, individual local authorities have limited scope for economies of scale, but that is where the long-term pressures are leading. If you cannot trust the administration to have the right policies and staff to outsource to a private company which will give you economies of scale then you cannot trust them to run an internal service, either way they are spending your money, and either way you can boot them out if you're not happy (or at least enought of you aren't happy, which ultimately trumps ideological direction).

But those economies of scale will only be applicable if either the private sector is already offering a similar service, or they can offer it to a wider amount of people. Both of those reason would leave us with the question of why? Why is the private sector duplicating public sector work? or why is the private sector able to offer a service to a wider section of the community than the public sector? We also need to remember that economies of scale can quite easily become dis-economies of scale.

Unfortunately all things are not equal, there is a need to do more with less in the long-term, and where economies of scale are available they need to be taken. Any politician needs to always remember it's not their own money they are spending, and if a private company can (legally, sustainably and responsibly) make a profit whilst delivering a saving that means they are spending less of other people's money then that is something they should view positively. I'm not saying outsource for the sake of it, but if you need to meet a statutory obligation and you can make the public's money stretch further by doing so then you should do it, the role of the local authority is primarily it's statutory obligations towards the people it serves, not to be some overarching paternalistic social project.

That doesnt explain why though does it. It doesnt explain why a private company can legally sustainably and responsibly run a service and make a profit for less cost than the public sector can simply run the service. Is it for example that the private sector will pay lower wages with worse terms and conditions? No whilst this may be a monetary saving on paper, are we then topping up those workers payments with tax credits? If so, in reality, that isnt a saving all. It is an additional cost just one simply moved to a different balance sheet. Are those lower wages and inferior terms and conditions attracting a lower quality of employee? This would leave us with an inferior service and likely wastage elsewhere.

The assumption that market forces would exist to keep that balance between quality and price simply isn’t applicable to the public sector, these are services that you need, services where choice and gimmicks and marketing aren’t relevant. People don’t have the choice to go without Gas and electricity, without water and healthcare, without police and ambulance and fire services, its not practical to walk in to a hospital and then walk out and go somewhere else because you didn’t like the service and it isn’t realistic for someone to set up a small electricy to supplier. These are vast and important industries where market forces don’t apply and where importantly, we cant afford for a business to fail.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Thu May 23, 2013 10:10 pm  

Sorry but THIS literally made me shudder.

Sorry but THIS literally made me shudder.