Francis Maude: Tories plan to wipe out state services

[ttosca]

A leading Cabinet minister has admitted that the Conservatives aim to eradicate the state provision of public services in this country. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister and a former banker, in an extraordinary gung-ho speech to Policy Exchange to mark 10 years of the centre-right think tank, said the Government wants to end state [...]
by David Hencke
Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

A leading Cabinet minister has admitted that the Conservatives aim to eradicate the state provision of public services in this country.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister and a former banker, in an extraordinary gung-ho speech to Policy Exchange to mark 10 years of the centre-right think tank, said the Government wants to end state provision of any public service ? even

if it means they end up being run by private equity companies from

tax havens.

The speech comes as David Cameron?s Government is embarking on a controversial programme to extend privatisation way beyond Margaret Thatcher?s wildest dreams ? to Britain?s road network and even the police.

Mr Maude, speaking at Carlton House Terrace, said his plans for mutualisation ? which begin next month with the move of all civil service pensions to a mutual run by the staff ? was just the start.

He said the aim was to end once and for all the idea of any provision of public services by the state.

Asked by Tribune whether civil servants could profit by selling on the mutual to a private equity firm or to companies in tax havens, he replied: ?In some cases, this could happen, although the Government would retain some form of a say.?

Mr Maude added: ?The state is an inherently monopolistic entity and a state monopoly can be the enemy of enterprise. Within the public sector there is a legion of entrepreneurs, fired with the public service ethos but deeply frustrated with the constraints imposed by the monolith within which they are imprisoned.?

Bizarrely, he cited Marx to back Tory plans. ?Karl Marx was right. Alienation is a central problem in modern society for people who do not own feel alienated. They feel dispossessed from any control over their own destiny. Of course, Marx wasn?t right about the solution. But this is a problem which Conservatives can solve.?

A civil service survey last year found that 94 per cent disagree with him. They want to retain their civil service status ? a request the Government has refused.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS, said: ?Far from being done by mutual consent, the Government?s plans rest on imposing unpopular ideas on an unwilling workforce.?

www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2012/03/tories-plan-to-wipe-out-state-services/

Um, that article isn't about state services, it's about the mutualisation of public service pensions. Or at least the bits directly quoting Maude.

Misleading title to this thread.

Here is his speech verbatim.

Edith-

I don't think so - at least not if the article is truthful. I think this:

A leading Cabinet minister has admitted that the Conservatives aim to eradicate the state provision of public services in this country.

^Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister and a former banker, in an extraordinary gung-ho speech to Policy Exchange to mark 10 years of the centre-right think tank, said the Government wants to end state provision of any public service ? even if it means they end up being run by private equity companies from tax havens."

and this:

He said the aim was to end once and for all the idea of any provision of public services by the state.

are pretty clear cut.

I would like to see a transcript of the speech itself.

In any case, it's entirely in line with Tory philosophy, so it's entirely possible.

Excellent. Thanks, Edith. I'll read that in full tonight.

The snag is that he didn't say " aim was to end once and for all the idea of any provision of public services by the state" that is editorial spin copy which bears no resemblance to what he said, which was about modernising the public sector, giving "coal face" staff greater say in how it is run (pilots showing increased efficiency) and encouraging innovation.

is he the one with the duck in the moat house?

No, that was Sir Peter Viggers.

I happen to think Maude is a twat of the highest order. However, even twats should not be misquoted nor have their words spun to such an appalling extent.

These measures are likely to make the state spend more, not less than at present, with more tax rises to fund them.

They've been completely open about privatising NHS services - although claiming they will remain free to the patient (only the health bill says local clinical commissioning groups get to decide what is an NHS service - if your local group, run quite possibly by McKinseys, decides that speech and language therapy isn't a core NHS service, tough shit).

It's sheep in wolves clothing. Using the cosy words 'mutuals' and 'social enterprise'. Social enterprises can be bought out by bigger businesses. The history of management buy-outs - which is what he is proposing - is that a few years down the line management do very nicely thank you by selling out to big business. That's what's happened on the railways, for instance. And all that profit goes to the owners, not the public purse.

What happens to freedom of information, which only applies to public bodies? What happens to accountability? What happens if you want to protest about the services delivered by your local clinical commissioning group (not the NHS any more)? What happens to the co-operation between different hospitals and services that is needed to plan healthcare, if they are all competing with each other for business?

The biggest beneficiaries of all this will be companies like G4S - those nice people who kill and abuse people being deported from the UK - and Serco. Who are already siphoning off millions from the public purse and stand to gain an awful lot more.

Mutuals cannot just be sold. There are processes for demutualisation (as seen by building societies in 80s) but they require a stakeholder vote, which is a pretty powerful tool. If the staff of the mutual do not vote in favour of change, it cannot legally happen. So if those who provide the services do not want it to happen, it can't.

Views on the size and role of the state have been extensively aired, and formed part of the Tory manifesto. There isn't anything new here.

Police to be controlled by G4S - anybody from any country can take over G4S if they have enough money -

This turns policing into a stock market commodity

Now George W Bush is a very rich man and so is Tony Blair

I wonder, Edith will you think it is all right when George W Bush addresses the nation to state the G4S strategy for British policing (Gadaffi's son is very rich too - do you think he should be allowed to buy control of British policing?

Mutuals can't be sold - except they have been, as you point out yourself. But most of this provision will be 'social enterprise' in other forms such as community interest companies, which definitely can be.

Well, if anyone was proposing a sell off of the police, I think I might become very agitated about it. Anyone doing so?

This speech doesn't call for any such thing, and doesn't introduce any new thinking.

I never said mutuals cannot be sold, BTW: I said they cannot just be sold off, unless there is a vote in favour by the stakeholders ie mutual owners.

did you miss this about plans to privatise the police? I've chosen a Tory source although there are plenty of others.

Seems the coppers are marching on London on Thursday to protest about the plans. Wonder quite how hospitable the Met will be? Not known for the welcome they usually give democratic protesters - will PCs from Bow and Battersea be slinging fellow officers from Liverpool in the nick?

A tory pushing mutualisation? Where's the profit in that? These cunts will not be happy till they earn money from us breathing clean fresh air. They want to monetise everything.

I wish you'd warned that it was a DM link, as it's a rag I wouldn't usually touch with a bargepole. I'll have a look for what the actual proposals are though. Thanks for the head's up.

What I've found is that there is a White Paper, but it in terms of non-police carrying out policing functions, it doesn't seem to add to the powers already granted to Chief Constables to do this which were conferred by the Police Reform Act 2002.