Suffolk to provide almost no local services directly

13

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wouldn't work, people would fly-tip instead of paying a private company to haul their household waste.

    Which is just one example...

    So these private companies will be guaranteed a profit for what we actually need to run efficiently as a society.

    Big Society here we come... :(
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    So these private companies will be guaranteed a profit for what we actually need to run efficiently as a society.

    Big Society here we come... :(

    The suggestion was about doing away with council tax and paying private companies to deliver each individual service. i.e some people would save the money and dump the rubbish.

    Private companies need to make a profit if they don't they go out of business but this doesn't mean they can't deliver better value for money within the public sector.
  • slapmattslapmatt Posts: 2,359
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One only needs to look at the utter failure and ripoff that is PFI. It simply proves the private sector is not always the solution. Sometimes it is the problem.

    I still don't understand why people think PFI is a rip-off.

    Take this article which ironically is abour hospitals in Suffolk.

    It states that a hospital which cost £36 million to build will be cost the NHS trust £180 million over 30 years.

    Whilst 180 looks a lot bigger than 36, if you work out the compound interest, this is only about 5-6% per year.

    Not only that, but the private company which built the hospital is also responsible for the maintenance of the building and depending on the contract often the catering and cleaning which can often run to tens of millions a year.

    Suddenly it doesn't look quite such a bad deal?
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,624
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mandark wrote: »
    I can understand your reasoning and I agree. As said by others here, there's nothing wrong with in-house public services as long as they are run as efficiently as possible. But there's a lot wrong with private sectors contractors with their indifference and negligence.

    When it comes to "indifference and negligence" council run services know all there is to know - especially when it comes to child protection.

    There's nothing wrong with well run in-house services and there's nothing wrong with well run contracted services. Are you suggesting everyone in the private sector is negligent?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    The suggestion was about doing away with council tax and paying private companies to deliver each individual service. i.e some people would save the money and dump the rubbish.

    Private companies need to make a profit if they don't they go out of business but this doesn't mean they can't deliver better value for money within the public sector.

    I'm aware of that, which is why it should be carefully considered before allowing essential services to be run by private companies whose sole aim is to make a profit, the shift of focus from the 'greater good' to 'profit' may be damaging in some areas.
  • The SnakesThe Snakes Posts: 8,940
    Forum Member
    I don't see why decent hard-working people should be taxed to the hilt so that pathetic wastrels can sit on their fat arses having the council do everything for them.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,866
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    So these private companies will be guaranteed a profit for what we actually need to run efficiently as a society.

    Big Society here we come... :(

    Contractors are not guaranteed a profit.

    To get the contract in the first place they are in a competitive tendering situation which makes them look at costs and service delivery very carefully.

    To get a profit they must then deliver the services that they contract to deliver efficiently. If they fail they can suffer contract penalties that will cost them or lose the contract all together. Some companies that have failed in this have rightly gone out of business.

    The system works very well taxpayers and service users all gain (dont forget the contractors and their employees are also often service users as well).

    Nothing wrong with profit either, it is a good thing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,866
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'd prefer to move to Sweden, where they have a proper mixed economy that works rather well. They also tend to take care of their weakest and most vulnerable members of society better than we seem to be doing.

    Time and time again, when governments hand power to private enterprise to take over what was traditionally state business, these companies have been less efficient and end up costing the taxpayer more. Railtrack, the US giving military power to Haliburton, A4E forcing some genuinely ill people back to work, etc.

    Private companies will simply skim as much money off the top as they can for profit. There are times and places where profit is a good goal and to be expected. Other times, such as dealing with health, crime, roads, etc. these services should be provided for the good of all.

    Interesting comment this.

    You might want to read this:
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6298643/low-taxes-work.thtml

    The Swedish Conservative Government has just won another term. Under them Sweden has become the fastest growing economy in Europe and has had massive tax cuts.

    Their PM is in contact with David Cameron who is well aware of the great work being done.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,490
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BarryW1 wrote: »
    The Swedish Conservative Government has just won another term. Under them Sweden has become the fastest growing economy in Europe and has had massive tax cuts.
    .

    Growth, growth, growth...it's all well and good, but our economic model relies on constant growth. Eventually we will either run out of space or resources and we will be unable to sustain this eternal growth. Unless we seriously develop new sources of energy and ways of living. Or another planet that has all the minerals and fossil fuels we need.

    Also bear in mind there are millions of people like me in the world who simply want enough to live off of and a roof over his head, who are happy to pay higher taxes for proper public services to make sure nobody is without the necessities. It's more important for me to be happy than to have "stuff", especially when it is to the detriment of others in society.
  • Silver TractorSilver Tractor Posts: 2,042
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    slapmatt wrote: »
    I still don't understand why people think PFI is a rip-off.

    Take this article which ironically is abour hospitals in Suffolk.

    It states that a hospital which cost £36 million to build will be cost the NHS trust £180 million over 30 years.

    Whilst 180 looks a lot bigger than 36, if you work out the compound interest, this is only about 5-6% per year.

    Not only that, but the private company which built the hospital is also responsible for the maintenance of the building and depending on the contract often the catering and cleaning which can often run to tens of millions a year.

    Suddenly it doesn't look quite such a bad deal?

    The article in your link refers to hospitals in Sussex, not Suffolk.

    I have just retired from working in a large NHS Hospital here in Suffolk.

    That hospital is now making significant cuts to staff (clinical and clerical).

    Many wards, clinics and departments are now struggling to meet the growing demands on their services.

    All public services in our county seem to be heading for the scrap heap and our elected Tory representatives seem to be doing nothing to halt the slide.
  • TimCypherTimCypher Posts: 9,052
    Forum Member
    trickyvik wrote: »
    I'm aware of that, which is why it should be carefully considered before allowing essential services to be run by private companies whose sole aim is to make a profit, the shift of focus from the 'greater good' to 'profit' may be damaging in some areas.

    Simple - like any kind of outsourcing, you just structure remuneration so that your goals become the goals of the company you're outsourcing too.

    You don't just give them a bag of money and let them get on with it (or not get on with it, as the case may be) - you pay them based on *outcomes* that you define.

    And you can be ruthless about it - far more ruthless and demanding than you could be with in-house front-line staff who would scream if they found out they would get no wage if they underperformed.

    Could you imagine the union reaction if public sector wages were 100% or even 50% performance based?

    Regards,

    Cypher
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mandark wrote: »
    That's a very good point. If you've got a group of senior managers on high salaries who manage the contracts then why exactly do you need the councillors?

    Ok you might say that the councilors act as an interface between the public and the contractors but in my experience, private sector contractors don't take councillors that seriously. It's the officers who manage the contract they respect. Council officers by contrast tow the line and generally treat councillor complaints on behalf of their constituents with the utmost seriousness. So things the public want usually get done.

    It seems that if we go down this route then the very principles of democracy may be at risk.

    Councillors take decisions on policy - public servants implement them and provide the support and advice which elected politicians need in order to make properly informed decisions. It's not rocket science - both are important and complementary roles.
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Growth, growth, growth...it's all well and good, but our economic model relies on constant growth. Eventually we will either run out of space or resources and we will be unable to sustain this eternal growth. Unless we seriously develop new sources of energy and ways of living. Or another planet that has all the minerals and fossil fuels we need.

    Also bear in mind there are millions of people like me in the world who simply want enough to live off of and a roof over his head, who are happy to pay higher taxes for proper public services to make sure nobody is without the necessities. It's more important for me to be happy than to have "stuff", especially when it is to the detriment of others in society.

    It's really good to hear someone else say they'd be happy to pay higher taxes for decent public service for those who need them. Have we become a nation so obsessed with our own material comfort that we don't care about others?
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    slapmatt wrote: »
    I still don't understand why people think PFI is a rip-off.

    Take this article which ironically is abour hospitals in Suffolk.

    It states that a hospital which cost £36 million to build will be cost the NHS trust £180 million over 30 years.

    Whilst 180 looks a lot bigger than 36, if you work out the compound interest, this is only about 5-6% per year.

    Not only that, but the private company which built the hospital is also responsible for the maintenance of the building and depending on the contract often the catering and cleaning which can often run to tens of millions a year.

    Suddenly it doesn't look quite such a bad deal?

    and eventually the building comes back into public ownership
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Those who talk of privatisation of services claim it "works" because the "market" forces the private companies to compete.

    How then do we explain the very average quality of service that most people receive from:

    Supermarkets
    Retail in general
    Mobile 'phone companies
    Utility Companies
    Land-Line 'phone Companies
    Hotels
    Airlines
    Personal Banking
    Commercial TV

    And so forth......


    For 80% of the time it's just about an average service we receive. Occasionally appalling, occasionally excellent (very rare that one)

    In fact things are getting worse each year the more "corporate" a service becomes.

    So real life is a direct contradiction to the idea that the free market improves services.
  • Silver TractorSilver Tractor Posts: 2,042
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's really good to hear someone else say they'd be happy to pay higher taxes for decent public service for those who need them. Have we become a nation so obsessed with our own material comfort that we don't care about others?

    I am a tax paying pensioner and would be happy to pay extra towards the upkeep of our public services.

    It seems to have become the norm to categorise the less fortunate in our society as "wasters" and "scroungers". Many people encounter financial and material hardship through ill health, unemployment and other social problems.

    Many of those people that are now denigrating the less fortunate in our society could soon find themselves in a less comfortable position.

    Will they then consider themselves to be "scroungers" ?
  • peter3hgpeter3hg Posts: 3,176
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    slapmatt wrote: »
    I still don't understand why people think PFI is a rip-off.

    Take this article which ironically is abour hospitals in Suffolk.

    It states that a hospital which cost £36 million to build will be cost the NHS trust £180 million over 30 years.

    Whilst 180 looks a lot bigger than 36, if you work out the compound interest, this is only about 5-6% per year.

    Not only that, but the private company which built the hospital is also responsible for the maintenance of the building and depending on the contract often the catering and cleaning which can often run to tens of millions a year.

    Suddenly it doesn't look quite such a bad deal?

    It does when you look at the maintenance contracts. They are very carefully worded so they don't cover the things that need fixing the most often.
    As a typical example, they will cover the pipework for a radiator, but not its fittings. Of course the bit that is likely to be knocked off all the time with beds and so on is the adjustment dial, which is classed as a fitting, so not covered. The company will then charge astronomical fees to fix it.
    I've read a few PFI maintenance contracts and it doesn't take long to realise that they are a very bad deal.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think that if this were to be done nationally we will end up with ghettos.

    Those without much money will be driven out of the wealthier areas where essential services are expensive and no longer provided by the council.


    What a ****hole the UK will become again under the Conservatives.
  • RichievillaRichievilla Posts: 6,179
    Forum Member
    I am a tax paying pensioner and would be happy to pay extra towards the upkeep of our public services.

    It seems to have become the norm to categorise the less fortunate in our society as "wasters" and "scroungers". Many people encounter financial and material hardship through ill health, unemployment and other social problems.

    Many of those people that are now denigrating the less fortunate in our society could soon find themselves in a less comfortable position.

    Will they then consider themselves to be "scroungers" ?

    Well said, some of the bigoted, ignorant comments on here are a very sad indictment of the "me, me, me" attitude of some people.
    The "pathetic wastrels" referred to in one staggeringly ignorant (but unfortunately not very surprising) comment are often people of all ages suffering from chronic illnesses and disabilities or frail pensioners who rely on Council services to keep some dignity and quality of life. Anyone who begrudges paying taxes to support these people (and it could happen to anyone) is a real lowlife scumbag imo. I find the likely transfer of services for these people to private companies for their profits totally immoral. Maybe with some services, such as bin collections, you could argue that a private company may do a better job (although maybe they wouldn't) but farming off services such as social care to the private sector for profit is just wrong imo.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In reality what "Big Society" is is the privatisation of government itself.

    People will still be required to pay taxes, much of which will be given to private companies to provide some kind of low-level service.

    But people will have no actual influence over these companies, so you can imagine the level of service they will provide.

    And it's not just going to happen with council services. It's education and healthcare too.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,565
    Forum Member
    I just hope that all the services are not provided by foriegn companies. When companies in europe and usa hear about whats going on i can see them swarming over here to cut out uk companies.

    A big chunk of the utitlities are already owned by non british companies.
    Contracts should only be open to uk companies.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,207
    Forum Member
    I would abolish all council tax and provide only basic services so people dont take advantage .TOO much cash is spent on pointless services and there are lots of Council non jobs and lazy efforts around draining resources.But i think this privatisation is wrong and as said the chiefs have massive wages and the trouts are in the pigswill well and truly .
  • CoreenBaconskinCoreenBaconskin Posts: 596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How many of these contracts will go to friends of the councillors? Anyone read Rotten Boroughs in Private Eye - its quite depressing.
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,002
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    slapmatt wrote: »
    I still don't understand why people think PFI is a rip-off.

    Take this article which ironically is abour hospitals in Suffolk.

    It states that a hospital which cost £36 million to build will be cost the NHS trust £180 million over 30 years.

    Whilst 180 looks a lot bigger than 36, if you work out the compound interest, this is only about 5-6% per year.

    Not only that, but the private company which built the hospital is also responsible for the maintenance of the building and depending on the contract often the catering and cleaning which can often run to tens of millions a year.

    Suddenly it doesn't look quite such a bad deal?

    i've read that a private company will soon take over the running of a nhs trust hospital.. how long before nhs jobs transfer to private companies?
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,624
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    daveetwo wrote: »
    A big chunk of the utitlities are already owned by non british companies.
    Contracts should only be open to uk companies.

    Which would be illegal. Do you object to British companies winning public contracts in Ireland, Spain and elsewhere?
Sign In or Register to comment.