Caemeron's comment on impending White Paper on Public Service Reform

[moondog]

Very encouraging I thought.

It's all about privatising services.

Lovely picture of Cameron. Ha ha

He looks like he's running a birthing class or inflating a blow-up doll

Or giving Nick Clegg a blow-job

I think this sounds quite encouraging, monopolies rarely produce quality and efficient services.

byrel, I think it is outrageous. I disagree that you can liken the health service, police service, education service, local authority services to a monopoly! That concept is bizarre. The private sector, in the main, is concerned with making money not providing services that are for the common good. If there are service level agreements imposed by government and the funding comes from the government, then these will need monitoring etc and who will do that - surely it will become more beaurocratic. The only winners will be Dave's friends.
Contrary to popular belief, LAs have become much leaner in recent years and have really sharpened up their practices. I work for a LA and I do not fit the stereotype that is commonly favoured by the average Daily Mail reader.
And as for the current round of cuts being necessitated by the deficit - well that little cover has certainly been blown away now.

Pah.

'the old-fashioned, top-down, take-what-you're-given model of public services'.

What - you mean councils providing - and paying for - schools and roads and rubbish collection and essential community services for the old, sick, disabled, children etc?

What a crock of shit.

My local authority are cutting essential services and sacking staff left, right and centre. This is not being done 'in the public interest'. It is ideological Tory bastardry and it fucking well stinks.

galdem - couldn't agree more.
we are about to see the total destruction of society and friends of the tories are laughing all the way to the bank.
I am really scared for the future of this country. I don't think it is beyond realistic to envisage the return of the poor house.
We should all be complaining to our MPs and out on marches. The divisions that this government has already cleverly created should be exposed. There is a lot of ill feeling towards public sector workers from those in the private sector. Yesterday's survey by Barclays where over 50% of private sector bosses would not employ someone who had lost their job in the public sector is a disgrace - there are some very good people working in the public sector and they are all stigmatised by some dinosaur like thinking that has been propagated by the ignorant and right wingers in this country.

I think there's scope for bring more choices to public services. Some services possibly aren't appropriate or wouldn't work better if run by private companies but others might benefit from it. We already have bidding procedures for various local service contracts so the precedent is there. Why not extend the coverage?

I don't think deficit reduction is a smokescreen either. If we were all prepared to pay far more in council taxes and income taxes there might be justification for the level of spending set up by the last administration. But I don't think there's an appetite for that. And if, ideologically, the new government believes that the welfare state should be much smaller, cheaper and focused solely on those in genuine need then many would support that..

Galdem as I usnderstand it, this is what councils would like you to believe.They are playing on people's emotions by claiming they will have ot cut 'essential services'. It would be worth your while to find out what it is your council wish to keep (cushy salaries for 'executives' and a plethora of non jobs) before leaping to this conclusion.

When you start trying to make healthcare profitable, it means some people won't be able to afford it and you end up with a system like that of the US.

No thanks.

I agree that the public sector could in some cases be run better, but this dogmatic 'if-it's-private-sector-then-it-must-be-better' dogma is just as pernicious in its own way as what the last lot spouted.

I don't trust the Tories to protect the vulnerable when they unleash the corporate world into these green pastures - we will all end up paying for this, except of course those who already have it all.

^^ah, the old 'non-jobs' eh!
I thought that Dave said that 'there was no part of the public sector that could not be delivered by private companies/charities'. Really! So my local Fire Station is now to be run by Greedy & Sons. Love to see where the savings are to be made there. Oh, yes, terms and conditions and salaries. And probably health and safety.
Chil1234, yes, SOME local authority services could possibly be run by private enterprise (I guess that rubbish collection could be one). But seriously, social services, child protection, etc. No, thought not. I know I'm not a terribly clever person but, how are private companies (or charities) to be paid? Out of central government coffers or are we expected to pay the companies directly for say a fortnightly rubbish collection. If it is by central government, in the same way that local authorities are paid, then why, oh why does the wheel need re-inventing. Oh, of course, so Dave's pals get richer. How does it make the provision of service more accountable or remove monopolies. If you privatise the rubbish collection service where I live, it will be to one provider and I will not be able to choose another regardless of how shite they are. Otherwise, you would have numerous companies collecting rubbish from the same street - can't see how that can be beneficial to anyone.
This is nothing other than a direct attempt to slash and burn the public sector - same old evil tories.

couldn't agree with you more Pointythings.
I am sick to the back teeth with the way that public sector practices and employees are vilified. The great majority of us do worthwhile jobs and DO NOT earn a fortune or receive golden goodbyes or pensions.
I also cannot understand why, if it is such a doss working for the public sector, don't those in the private sector that continually moan about it, get a blardy job in the public sector.
Like my neice did. Who, at 21 years old, cares passionately for the elderly people on the ward on which she works. And lays them out when they are dead. Nice work eh. Expect the frothy, driven, go get em types in the private sector will be queueing up to get a job like that.

Well done Cameron.

Choice and diversity of provision brings innovation and improvement.

Take education.

Yes, crap schools will either have to shut down or improve, fast, when a new free school, actually offering what parents want, opens next door. That is a good thing.

The teaching unions will be angry, because mediocrity will no longer be acceptable - but so what? Free schools and academies will hopefully weaken the teaching unions to the point of irrelevance. The selfish attitude which puts the interests of bad teachers above realising the potential of pupils will come to an end.

And longfingernails

That shiny new free school will get funds for a shiny new building whilst the crap school in the difficult catchment area which has just had its improvements scrapped will still have to teach in leaking prefabs with stinky toilets.

And the shiny new free school won't need to employ qualified teachers, so will be able to pay them less, whilst the crap school doesn't have this option.

And the free school will have funds thrown at it which will be taken away from all the other schools in the area, because there is no money (except for Trident and reductions in corporation tax, of course).

Level playing field for all to improve? More like throwing struggling schools off a cliff.

But you don't care, so I don't even know why I'm bothering writing this...

And what's crap, anyway? In OFSTED terms, it's often labelled 'satisfactory'.

I believe that qualifications for teachers are more or less useless. There is a small amount of theory which is useful - it can easily be covered in a week or so of continual professional development each year.

I suspect that free schools will pay better teacher salaries than state schools, despite the lack of "qualifications" - because a better calibre of teacher will, on average, work there - attracted by the prospect of genuine meritocracy, which is so totally absent in the local authority run sector.

LFN, does everything boil down to teaching unions with you?!! any particular teaching union?

if anything, it is the selfish attitude of those setting up their mini free schools to educate a few at the cost of a whole lot more, who are being selfish. i have never heard of a union being happy with mediocrity or a school for that matter by the way. as for free schools offering what parents want, well maybe if you have 'suitable children' then the head/board may get your dc into it-if that is what floats your boat. personnaly, i want my dc to go to a good local school which is like other local schools, and offering the same subjects so all children start of with an equal chance.

LFN, are in education?

i mean, are you in education?

'I have never heard of a union being happy with mediocrity or a school for that matter by the way.'

Hahahaaahahhha!!

Yes indeed LFN.
Couldn't agree more.
Free schools are going to frighten the shit out of countless people who have been winging it for year. Bring 'em on!

No - is it your contention that only teachers and local education bureaucrats should have an opinion on how schools should be run?

That, by the way, is essentially the view of NUT and NASUWT.

The idea that doing the best thing for your children is "selfish" is quite laughable.

It reminds me of Fiona bloody Wotsit (Campbell's sidekick) pointing out (with no irony whatsoever) that if free schools are any good, 'everyone will want to go to them'.

Prevailing view seems to be that in the name of equality, everyone should just put up with shite because, you konw, it's like democratic and freeeeeeee, maaaan.

Yes, for some reason, the left seems to take the view that it is bad if pupils get a good, classical education.

Actually, a moment's reflection shows that the reason Labour hate decent education is pretty clear - after all, they need to cultivate tomorrow's vote banks :o

Exactly-a client state of people who believe the aim of government is to keep them encased in a dulling (and very costly) cocoon of 'support and enablement'.

LFN, schools have governors-parent ones, local council members etc. schools also listen to other parents. schools also have to follow the curriculum as set by the government of the day.

i am not saying doing the best for your children is selfish. i am saying that the free schools idea is selfish.

moondog, 'support and enablement' [and very costly]? isn't that what free schools are?

lets face it, aren't they intended for children who didn't quite make it into grammar school and who can't quite afford private school?