I think public services, on which everyone depends, should be in public hands. It galls me that, for example, public transport in the UK is the most expensive in Europe, yet the rail and bus companies pay out dividends to shareholders. This despite the fact that key infrastructure projects are paid for by the taxpayer, so the travelling public pays twice. I think nationalising things like British Leyland in the 1960's was a mistake, a step too far. Manufacturing and trade never seems to flourish under govt control, but essential services, many of which can never really be truly profitable anyway, should be run for the benefit of thise who rely on them.
I agree with the profit part, however we seem to be crap at running organisations and filling them with bureaucracy and red tape, that ends up just bleeding money. Now if we nationalised things and ran them properly, I'd be all for it.
As I said above. We need to have the right strategies and people in place before we even start. Current government run organisations waste millions and millions because they are not manager properly.
Royal Mail made consistent profits year on year when in oublic ownership. So did the East Coast mailine when it was taken back into public ownership, before being sold off again to Virgin. Network Rail, which remains in public hands following disastrous mismanagement by it's previous franchisee, is generally accepted as the most efficient part of the UK railway system. So it's a bit of a myth that bodies in public ownership can't be run efficiently.
You telling me your local authorities are run well... the NHS?? I'm sure we all know lots of horror stories about these organisations. It's not a myth at all. Lots of them are run awfully. Don't get me wrong and you'd have seen in my first post, I'd like them nationalised, but only if they don't waste billions of pounds. Absolute money drains.
Again, not convinced that everyone voted with Brexit in mind. OK, Corbyn may of been a bit woolly over their actual plans, but outright promises to the youth on this? I'm not sure the 'yoof' are all so stupid to have made that assumption.
Are these horror stories from your own experience, or hearsay? I'm not sure the NHS is any more wasteful than other organisations, public or private, of the same size. I imagine some parts of it are extremely well run and provide excellent value for money - in fact I'm sure they do - but we hardly ever hear about them. Do you think the banking sector, for example, has been well managed in recent decades? Or the petro-chemical industry? The building industry? all these are in private hands so we can't blame their failings on the public sector or on government mismanagement.
Agreed. I always find it interesting that when people talk about public sector pay they're happy to bring up nurses, teachers and firemen but you very rarely hear about the people behind desks at the local council. I don't think anyone minds nurses etc getting more money but some of the others are still overpaid, even after ten years of limited pay rises. I worked for a council in London until the end of last year and the laziness, incompetence and/or disinterest among staff was staggering. You could see people come through the door with, perhaps not fiery enthusiasm, but at least some sort of interest. Then over a period of months you'd see the life sucked out of them. There was one relatively young, bright guy who'd worked there for over 10 years and become totally institutionalised. He'd seen problems side-stepped, passed on or ignored for years and worked alongside people who couldn't or wouldn't do their job to an acceptable standard but had been employed for decades and he'd ended up losing all interest. He'd set up a business selling art prints online and by the time I left he'd bring his own personal laptop into the office most days, set it up on his desk and spend most of the day working on his own designs and/or business admin rather than doing his actual job. Nobody seemed to care and when a project manager I knew from another department asked if this guy could be spared to assist with one of their projects they were told he was "too busy". Two other people have joined my new company from the public sector in the last month or so and both have said similar things. Deadlines pass, jobs go well over budget, incorrect information is given to the public and so on and (generally speaking) nobody does anything about it. There are good staff who try and meet deadlines and so on but they end up getting very stressed covering for others. Then they're asked the following sort of questions by their colleagues: "You don't need to do that. Why are you bothering?" "Do you get paid more for doing that?" "Why do you let things get to you?" Some are openly mocked by others and called "teachers pet" or whatever because they're prepared to do extra things when asked to by their manager. Again, I've experienced all of this (or very similar) myself. I think there's a major problem with the HR processes in the public sector, both in terms of hiring and discipline/performance. I remember being told very early on in my time that the nature of council interviews often means they don't result in the best candidate getting a job. Once you're employed the HR processes are incredibly time-consuming and convoluted and a manager who tries to deal with an under-performing member of staff is often (usually?) accused of bullying or similar and ends up going through hell themselves. So they frequently don't bother. I found this blog posting a year or two ago and I'd say it's pretty accurate: https://welovelocalgovernment.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/not-getting-sacked/ I think I've spoken on here before about the guy who took a job with council I worked for, complained about the early start time on his first day, called in sick on his second day, regularly came in late after that, was found asleep in his van while he should have been working and claimed 5 days off work for jury service when he was only needed for 3 or 4. Even then it took 6 months and a large pile of paperwork for his manager to get rid of him (and of course he resigned just before his disciplinary hearing so he technically didn't get sacked). Also worth adding that making a profit isn't necessarily a sign of efficiency. That's true of any organisation. I went on a training course about a year ago and the trainer told some of us about his work history during a break. He started working in the car industry where they insist on efficiency and ironing out any problems at all in the business. Whenever there's any sort of problem they do a full analysis of why it happened and do whatever is necessary to stop it happening again. He loved it there but was offered a massive pay rise to go a work for (I doubt there'd be a problem naming them but let's just say...) a large high street pharmacy. They had no interest at all in what he did and in his words* "They had 12 people doing the work of 4 and weren't interested in changing that because they made such easy profits - it costs 20p to manufacture a packet of paracetamol and you can then sell it for £3." * Can't remember the prices exactly. They may not be 100% accurate but are about right.
If you call direct knowledge from my father in law who worked as a finance manager in the NHS "hearsay" then, yes, hearsay. They waste millions through red tape and bureaucracy. It's astounding. It is a wonderful thing the NHS with some wonderful people working it, but it could be financed and managed so much better. Many many times I read in here about the "disgusting" profits that some companies make - well my point is (and it agrees with what I think is your fundamental belief) that if some services were run in this way (as with the Royal Mail you mentioned) then we the people would benefit. If I told you what I know about the NHS, just for one example, it would make your toes curl. And we pay for that. My point is simple: anything we nationalise MUST be run properly without heamoraging money. One question I always have and it pisses me off, is why oh why do civil organisations spent like mad just before he end of the financial year, just because they fear losing budget the following year. A lot of times that money gets wasted or spent on unnecessary crap.
What do you mean by huge myth? It was run well? Yes and I haven't said otherwise. And again yes, it shouldn't have been sold.
I agree the NHS is a financial nightmare, and very wasteful, but most of this has been created by the "internal market" which was set up in the 1980's. The sheer amount of management layers and bureaucracy whose sole function is to administer the buying and selling of services from one NHS department to another is mind boggling, and is largely a complete waste of time and money.
Absolutely. If only that could be unravelled, it would save a fortune. I'm not interested in blame or finger pointing. Just would love us to be able to change it and get rid of those layers of waste.
This raises two critical points for me. The system you want to unravel - and I agree it should be - was set up, together with all the other "privatised" bollocks, on the altar of an ideology that the market knows best. The free market might be effective in selling widgets but it's crap when applied to a service like the NHS. But this leads to my second point. Anyone who works or has worked in public service sectors could tell you where the inefficiencies are. But lots of it worked well, so the changes became a baby with bathwater exercise. The NHS is an astonishing achievement and one of which I am very proud. You have your "toe-curling" stories, mate, and I have no reason to question that. I have mine as a consequence of having two of my kids working in the NHS. I could make you shudder at stories of the French health service, even though they once ensured that I came out of hospital with all limbs intact after an horrendous accident. But it comes back to my two points. Governments set up education, health etc based on an ideology and never, but never, ask the people who make it work how it could be improved. Indeed those who work in it are seen as self-serving selfish bastards. It's a recipe for **** ups.
Good point, well made, Archers. I've worked in both public and private sectors and poor management is evident in both. This is usually characterised by an inability to listen or to admit that a direction set is based on a flawed idea. As a trade union negotiator, I also came across excellent examples of management in both sectors. This was where managers valued and trusted the workforce, to put it simply. And guess what? Productivity and efficiency was better in these organisations. I saw at first hand how bullying, hectoring "I know best" management led to poor outcomes. But it was always difficult to persuade these kind of managers of the need to change. There is a significant cultural malaise, in my view. I note that productivity has fallen again in UK plc. My analysis is a simplistic one, I admit. But looking at effective management styles might not be a bad place to start.
