Public sector or private companies?

[Anna B]

Your problem is not with private companies running public services, your problem is an ideological hatred of anyone making a profit.

 

You are wrong on just about every assumption you make about private companies so I am guessing you have never worked for one.

 

1. Profit is a motive but long term contract relationships are even more important. Ever heard of open book accounting? I doubt it.

 

2. Well written and managed contracts can produce savings for tax payers, better quality for customers and a reasonable return for the contractor. It just rarely happens because the public sector are so inept at everything they touch. Vested interests make sure they write contracts that can't and won't deliver savings.

 

3. Tens of thousands of private companies already make profits from supplying public services so why all the fuss now?

 

Your last point about money going into the pockets of the already rich is so daft it doesn't warrant a comment.

 

So please explain to me the joke that is A4e.

 

Also, why are the public sector so inept? Genuine query. They're paid enough and heaven knows they have enough managers to oversee the job. Isn't someone in charge of ensuring such basic requirements as value for money?

 

And if not, why not?

[HeadingNorth]

Also, why are the public sector so inept?

 

Chiefly, for two intertwined reasons. It isn't their own money, and there is little to no risk of being fired for wasting it.

 

A private company which spends too much goes bankrupt; an employee of a private company, who spends too much, gets fired for incompetency. A council which spends too much simply takes more money from taxpayers (via whatever source) to make up the shortfall, and people being fired from public sector jobs are rare indeed.

[INTERVIEWER]

Your last point about money going into the pockets of the already rich is so daft it doesn't warrant a comment.

 

You obviously missed the recent news about the former boss of A4e, a private profit company totally dependent upon public funding for its survival, receiving over £8 million in dividends despite A4e repeatedly failing to meet minimum government targets.

 

In the public sector this money would not be given to a single greedy individual, but reinvested for the good of the customer base - the unemployed.

[Jim Graham]

So please explain to me the joke that is A4e.

 

Also, why are the public sector so inept? Genuine query. They're paid enough and heaven knows they have enough managers to oversee the job. Isn't someone in charge of ensuring such basic requirements as value for money?

 

And if not, why not?

 

 

The quickest way to answer that is simply to point out that at the top of all public sector organisations is..................................a politician. Then it becomes crystal clear why the public sector is a shambles.

 

Perhaps what few people realise is that the civil service have a code that says the minister, or politician, at the top is always responsible for the actions of his staff. That is because they are said to be implementing the minister's policy. Consequently nobody lower down has to take responsibility for all the monumental **** ups. It seems that the rest of the public sector have adopted this policy. Just to make sure they don't get sussed they also make every organisation as complicated as possible and do everything by committee. In that way it's almost impossible to identify any individual responsible for any decision.

 

HeadingNorth sums it all up very well.

[Jim Graham]

You obviously missed the recent news about the former boss of A4e, a private profit company totally dependent upon public funding for its survival, receiving over £8 million in dividends despite A4e repeatedly failing to meet minimum government targets.

 

In the public sector this money would not be given to a single greedy individual, but reinvested for the good of the customer base - the unemployed.

 

I didn't miss it. As I stated on another thread:

 

"As I have said until I'm blue in the mouth if you give people stupid contracts and then take a hands off approach you get........................A4e and you get public money wasted which is pretty much what happens in the public sector all the time"

[INTERVIEWER]

Your last point about money going into the pockets of the already rich is so daft it doesn't warrant a comment.

 

Actually, it has already warranted a number of comments from you.

 

But this still doesn't render your above comment meaningful, realistic or even one based, however tenously, upon reality.

[HeadingNorth]

You obviously missed the recent news about the former boss of A4e, a private profit company totally dependent upon public funding for its survival, receiving over £8 million in dividends despite A4e repeatedly failing to meet minimum government targets.

 

In the public sector this money would not be given to a single greedy individual, but reinvested for the good of the customer base - the unemployed.

 

In the public sector, the money probably would never have existed to begin with, given the amount of waste that is invariably associated with public sector projects. That's rather the point.

[taxman]

In the public sector, the money probably would never have existed to begin with, given the amount of waste that is invariably associated with public sector projects. That's rather the point.

 

No, the point is we are told that private sector businesses are more efficient so we stop funding public sector provision, transfer the funds to a private company, which fails (but still gets paid), and then we wonder why we get neither the service, nor the reduction in costs.

 

 

Then the public sector has to come along and bail out the failed private provider. Like happened with the breast implants.

[tinfoilhat]

No, the point is we are told that private sector businesses are more efficient so we stop funding public sector provision, transfer the funds to a private company, which fails (but still gets paid), and then we wonder why we get neither the service, nor the reduction in costs.

 

 

Then the public sector has to come along and bail out the failed private provider. Like happened with the breast implants.

 

The public sector didn't need to have it's hands on the breast implant thing (pun intended !). It was done by the private sector, generally, for women who wanted a bigger rack, no medical reason. They companies concerned should put it right, by their own insurance or gratis.

[Anna B]

The quickest way to answer that is simply to point out that at the top of all public sector organisations is..................................a politician. Then it becomes crystal clear why the public sector is a shambles.

 

Perhaps what few people realise is that the civil service have a code that says the minister, or politician, at the top is always responsible for the actions of his staff. That is because they are said to be implementing the minister's policy. Consequently nobody lower down has to take responsibility for all the monumental **** ups. It seems that the rest of the public sector have adopted this policy. Just to make sure they don't get sussed they also make every organisation as complicated as possible and do everything by committee. In that way it's almost impossible to identify any individual responsible for any decision.

 

HeadingNorth sums it all up very well.

 

If sensible targets are in place, maybe we should go back to firing those responsible for missing them, ie. those at the top rather than those at the bottom.

Might concentrate the mind marvelously...