Suffolk Council to outsource its services

[Alex C.]

Is there an argument why the same couldn't be done in-house (other than the unions, who will always resist change)? Surely if you could squeeze the same efficiency as the private sector and not have to pay shareholders millions in dividends, that would be preferable?

 

And with regards to employees, I would presume they would be 'TUPEd' over, so they would have the same terms & conditions as existing staff...

[HeadingNorth]

Would you rather your taxes went into the pocket of an extra binman. Or into the pocket of an executive from Capita.

 

 

Given that the overall cost is lower when giving it to an executive from Capita - because the amount lost to private profit is vastly less than the amount lost to council waste - I'd prefer the latter option. So would anybody else who thinks that services should be provided as cheaply as they can be consistent with a given quality.

[dell12]

Given that the overall cost is lower when giving it to an executive from Capita - because the amount lost to private profit is vastly less than the amount lost to council waste - I'd prefer the latter option. So would anybody else who thinks that services should be provided as cheaply as they can be consistent with a given quality.

 

But there's very little evidence to suggest that privatisation in the longer term leads to lower costs or a better service, although there might be some small, short term efficiencies made.

 

For example we now pay more in subsidy for the railways, than we paid to run them under British Rail. The privatised bus service that operates pretty much everywhere outside London has seen a reduction in service and an above inflation rise in fares.

 

Clearly the private sector has a big role to play in society, but for me it shouldn't operate core government services as it is harmful to society when decisions are made on profit margins alone.

[HeadingNorth]

But there's very little evidence to suggest that privatisation in the longer term leads to lower costs or a better service

 

 

Er, what? You don't consider that almost every single company that was privatised in the 80s went from losing an unholy fortune to being profitable, as evidence that privatisation saves money?

 

The railways are a notorious exception because of how appallingly badly the privatisation was handled; but note that, prior to 1948, the very idea of subsiding railway companies was unheard of. The railway companies paid tax, they didn't receive it.

[Gordonb]

Would you rather your taxes went into the pocket of an extra binman. Or into the pocket of an executive from Capita. Before you make that choice, try to think of where the respective parties will spend their wages.

 

This is exactly what is wrong with our society. We seem to cheerfully give our cash to the few at the top of big businesses, rather than looking for ways to spread wealth around.

 

You can blame the extra binman for our problems if you wish, I think that you are looking in the wrong trousers.

 

If I thought that having an extra man would improve the service and empty the bins more often then I would agree, however history would show that the service wouldn't improve and the extra man would just be absorbed and slot into an "easy life". I remember living in south Birmingham in the early 70's about 10 mins away from Longbridge and the guys there made no secret of the fact that for every few men on the line there was another asleep in a cupboard or leaning on a broom somewhere. It might have been bad management or greedy unions bit it still had the same effect namely the ordinary person couldn't afford a new car and the workforce became demoralised which lead to shoddy workmanship and inferior products.

[MeMyself&I]

Given that the overall cost is lower when giving it to an executive from Capita - because the amount lost to private profit is vastly less than the amount lost to council waste - I'd prefer the latter option. So would anybody else who thinks that services should be provided as cheaply as they can be consistent with a given quality.

 

And of course if they are are useless like Liberata were you are stuck until the end of the contract until you can get rid of them, if they work for the Council you can have reshuffles and get shot of the useless sods.

 

I can see why you would prefer a private firm - much more sensible option

 

You don't happen to work for Capita do you, maybe management:suspect:

[chimay]

I see Suffolk Council plans to outsource almost all of its services in order to save money.

 

Having experienced outsourced services in Sheffield I can't for the life of me think why the people of Suffolk would welcome this.

Anyone that doesn't believe me just look at performance levels for our outsourced services.

 

We don't.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398678

 

What alternative methods for slashing their budget by nearly a third, would be less bothersome?

 

Getting rid of the highly overpaid Chief Executive

 

 

Guess where I live...............

[Gordonb]

I did think Titanic would have brought up the salary of Suffolk Chief Exec by now. Can't have been reading the papers where she is listed as one of the top 10 council employees salary wise.

[Titanic99]

Given that the overall cost is lower when giving it to an executive from Capita - because the amount lost to private profit is vastly less than the amount lost to council waste - I'd prefer the latter option. So would anybody else who thinks that services should be provided as cheaply as they can be consistent with a given quality.

 

Where is your evidence that this actually happens though?

 

Take Sheffield for example where lots of services have already been outsourced yet we still face 25% cuts and the services already outsourced have consistently proved to be some of the poorest in the country.

 

It seems we are taking a triple whammy: we pay shareholders big profits for a crappy service and we still end up with more cuts.

[Titanic99]

Er, what? You don't consider that almost every single company that was privatised in the 80s went from losing an unholy fortune to being profitable, as evidence that privatisation saves money?

 

The railways are a notorious exception because of how appallingly badly the privatisation was handled; but note that, prior to 1948, the very idea of subsiding railway companies was unheard of. The railway companies paid tax, they didn't receive it.

 

Have a look at how the outsourced services in Sheffield have performed as it may shock you.