Prisons are more less privatised now aren't they? The usual suspects such as Serco and G4S syphoning billions of taxpayers money to their shareholders.
There is some privatisation. My friend, who told me about all of this and who used to work at a prison, says about 10% are privatised. But they all answer to those I mentioned, who are almost all state employed, whether directly or through QUANGOS. All institutions now have this huge barnacle off excessive bureaucracy attached to them.
Labour have made a decent start on cutting QUANGOs. They've abolished the largest NHS England, along with others in the NHS such as Healthwatch England, and the National Guardians Office. They've also launched a general review of public bodies, demanding departments justify or close public bodies not directly controlled by ministers. Give them a bit time to see how far they get is my view.
Well they say they have abolished NHS England, but not one job has yet been lost. Up to the other week that is. And eternal reviews are what all governments do. They kick the can down the street. The Tories do this too. And in their first year, Labour have set up another THIRTY new QUANGOS. They all say it. They all even use the same phrase, " bonfire of the QUANGOS". But they don't mean it They don't have the stomach for it, not does any party. It's too much of a job and they are terrified of getting stick from the BBC and co. But one day, sooner rather than later, it will have to be done, or it will do itself.
Reform’s policy is swingeing cuts to services like we’ve never seen to fund tax cuts for the wealthy with a pittance for the lowest income. The privatisation of prisons was bad enough. Probation even worse. I like social enterprises and charities delivering community services but essential programmes like that where coordination is essential no. I’m not against quangos entirely, they are just the same as needing a department to deliver in many cases but they can do it shackle free and bring wider investment, they just work for a different employer There is waste and overspend, I recognise that and messy subsets sometimes mess with systems. I want more services not less maybe funded by reducing wasted. Done well they increase economic outputs by meeting health and social needs. Society needs them. Cohesion happens when people meet. Prevention happens when people have services. It’s a wise investment in prevention and in the absence of income people need things provided. You seem to have been sucked into the idea we shouldn’t touch wealth. The bonds you talk about are from people richer than countries. **** their % increase and start taxing assets. They won’t even notice. They’ll still have plenty of change for posh dog food if you took 6% off them and made the world work more effectively for more people.
Have a read of the 10 year health plan. It’s all about better services more efficiently, early intervention to save further ahead. Imagine if we just sacked load of health workers or even the back room team without implementing a better plan. I’m glad you’re not in charge or we’d be ruined now, ahead of if/when reform run health when we’ll be ****ed anyway.
You don't just close something overnight, you need to evaluate what functions need to be maintained and ensure the transfer of those functions before closing the legacy body. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. I'm willing to give Labour another couple of years to see how this plays out.
I’m not happy with Labour. Not keen on Starmer but really it’s the back room I have beef with. I think if they had rid of Starmer and McSweeney things would potentially change and they’d be electable. Ideally to Burnham but I cant see how. However, I see good policy areas so they aren’t all bad. They’ve done some really dumb things.
Interesting article on the danish approach to migration, where people only get temporary leave to remain during conflicts. Labour considering adopting some of it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2lknr2d3go
Won't be much more. But it doesn't change the problem regarding the money being poured into the wrong areas. It's the same in all institutions.
No. You dont. But a good start would have been not to create any new ones. They have created two a month so far. But every one of them could be told to make savings. Say there per cent a year through a parliament, and some will need to go entirely. Many do duplicate work and they are all plagued by the ever permanent feature of any bureaucracy; it grows and feeds itself. They all say they will tackle this. They all create more and get rid of fewer.
Yes, you often do. But you have to have the money. At the current rate, the UK will, in about five or six years, maybe even sooner, be spending every penny it borrows just to pay the interest on previous loans. Except the markets won't lend when they see that line coming.It is untenable. Just the sight of that line is spooking the bond markets. That is why the big tax rises are coming. There will be no " bail out" crisis as happened in the seventies, when the IMF obliged Healey to change course. In any event, the IMF has nothing like the liquidity to touch the problem. This time, the corrective action is being applied by the markets. To lend money they want to see spending controlled, which they would rather see, or taxes raised, which is what they are going to see. Nothing new in this, it's all happened before, though the debt from COVID is a very big and unique element of the problem. And that is not something people like to think about.
About time The Home Secretary is set to announce a major shake-up of the immigration and asylum system later this month, the BBC has learned. Shabana Mahmood will model some of her new measures on the Danish system - seen as one of the toughest in Europe. It is understood officials have been looking at Denmark's tighter rules on family reunion and restricting most refugees to a temporary stay in the country. Mahmood wants to reduce incentives that draw people to the UK, while making it easier to expel those with no right to be in the country. But some in her party are against going down the Danish route, with one left-wing Labour MP saying it was too "hardcore" and contained echoes of the far right. At the Labour conference in September, Mahmood promised to "do whatever it takes" to regain control of Britain's borders. She is impressed that Denmark has driven down the number of successful asylum claims to a 40-year low - with the exception of 2020, amid pandemic travel restrictions. The BBC has been told she dispatched senior Home Office officials to Copenhagen last month to study what lessons could be applied to the UK. In Denmark, refugees who have been personally targeted by a foreign regime are likely to be given protection. But most people who have been successfully granted asylum when fleeing conflicts are now only allowed to remain in the country on a temporary basis. When the Danish government decrees their home country is safe, they can be returned. For those who have been in Denmark for a longer period, the length of time necessary to acquire settlement rights has been extended and conditions - such as being in full-time employment - have been added
And the Covid money went where ? We have to get it back because it didn’t go to me and you, well not the bulk of it. I’m not sure if you’re willing to accept a world where people live in poverty but have no services and the knock on social impacts of that which is the tip of where we are now. Immigrants are NOT to blame for the cost of living crisis, financial inequality is but they are wrongly being scapegoated. There will be many more scapegoats and if it’s us who lose our jobs and homes it could be us next as the unworthy, the foolish who took on too much debt to buy a home, essentially to compete with those who can buy a number of them. So we cut services and impact on the lives of the poorest or we take money from where it exists. The bond markets don’t care if we cut youth services. Their kids go on holidays on daddy’s yacht via the Porsche 4x4. Back in Sunderland people may have no homes and no accessible services. To do sport many Sunderland people are saying it needs to be low cost. Fact. How if we cut services? So Hugo should be healthy while Sunderland people die? No thanks. So take the money from Hugo. I’d argue your approach indicates you care little about the low and average income person and their quality of life. Savings yes, austerity no , tax wealth not work, cut wealth not services.
@rowley on this point, on health, if technology improves efficiency we need the technology and it needs to work, hence, without investment we can’t reach efficiencies without losing effectiveness. This is all over the health strategy and I suggest you have an explore.
