Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Pretty ambitious for a one-termer.
surely not a good day to suggest private enterprise > public sector tho.
...and Rupert feels like BUYING!
I understand the logic of markets, the improvements in efficiency etc but surely for it to work properly you have to have winners and losers, they think its all positives and no negatives, when it comes to public services it is unacceptable to have a failing provider provide but you need them to fail for it to work properly. maybe I dont understand it
I mean it all worked out ok with gas, electricity and the railways, right?
Were you not told?
Did you not know?
Everything around you's being sold
Do you not care?
Were you not there?
Everybody else was going spare
What's yours and mine?
Does this escape you all the time?
Sometimes I wish protesting was sexy on a Saturday night
I'm so tired of our old-fashioned, dusty things. Modernise that hospital, make it modern. How? Er...um, just sell it I guess. MODERN
Selling things is more modern. Modern things are more modern.
A mandate to create an entire sector of companies with a guaranteed statutory income base directly from the taxpayer. How does that a) signal any kind of free market or b) benefit the economy
when i get to rule the world he'll be euthanized like the rest of them
sounds very dystopian, it'll be like living in Robocop/Blade Runner. I've always wanted to be a futuristic PI chasing crims decked in leather and goggles around neon-lit streets while D-Cam's face (in his 17th term) is projected 50ft onto the side of Tescospital.
did you ever play an old SNES game called Shadowrun? it's probably one of my favourite videogames ever. it's like a cyberpunk game, but also with MAGIC and STUFF. so you can hire Orks with machine guns as bodyguards, and at one point you have to fight a dragon guarded by laser towers. amazing stuff.
and she said she'd stay with me forever. She and I were going to be together forever. I kept her alive until the end of the game, happy that she wouldn't have to go back to working in that bar where she turned into a fox for the pleasure of the no-mark NPC customers, and where I got the strobes to use to kill the vampires in the Dark Blade.
Kitsune was horribly gunned down in the final battle with Drake's goons. IN THE END SEQUENCE. I'll never forget her screams. Au revoir, ma renard. No more pain where you are now.
i had no idea about that, i never managed to get her that far.
also when I was clearing through some boxes of stuff at my mother's house I found a Shadowrun RPG manual I bought in about 1997, whilst enamoured with the SNES one. fancy a game sometime? :D
…David Cameron excels in being both honorably well intentioned but staggeringly politically naïve.
I do TRY to like the man but…
by order of me
It's like saying God has a "holy monopoly" or water has a "fish monopoly".
They're STATE services. Of course the state is gonig to have the monopoly.
I'll tell him about cunting monopolies... WHAT ABOUT BSKYB?
Fucking Tories wrecking this country. We'll only have to spend millions undoing it later on.
Short sighted buffoons.
We're in power.
such as, "Fucking Tories wrecking this country. We'll only have to spend millions undoing it later on"?
if needed. We can talk about PPCs with local council services, Thatcher's centralisation of power, the scrapping fo the GLC, the capping local Labour councils on spend, the massive undervalue selling off of many British industries, the scrapping of the nest eggs of every new born, the record unemployment in the 80s, whatever. Cameron, Major, Thatcher. We've spend millions undoing that shit and we'll have to do it again. So fuck off, Spaceman.
'It's not fair that we - the government - oversee and run everything. Why not let you guys do it? Let's set up a Facebook group! You can vote on policies in there. BUT if you get it wrong or the charities and Big Society community partnerships can't raise the amount needed to submit a tender, then I *guess* we'll have to let the private companies help us out...'
David, it's over to you...
you see, although the taxation will not go down a commeasurate amount, they need to off load some of the drains on the tax revenue.....like schools, health, welfare etc.....and if they tell us to use the private sector and this will not provide for those 'without' then that is not their fault..........those within will have an increasingly (little by little a thousand times over) hardened attitude to those 'without'
Those within will need to be protected, hence front line poliing and the army et will be exempt from privatisation (they need to ensure loyalty when things get really nasty after all)
Oh they need to reduce the amount they spend so that they an continue to pay the interest on the international debt (and the financial industry).
I think that none of this is a suprise to me......that it is a suprise to others IS a suprise to me.......the people voted for this though, so i suppose the defenders of the extant democracy will defend this too.
then his tax revenue is going to go down anyway......still that way he will be able to more able justify those without not getting any services or help, since they don't give anything to the state, he will be able to argue that they shouldn't get anything from the state.
I am nevertheless breathless that he is so transparently holding up something that will not work as he is purporting it to.....its either niavity of an extraordinary degree, or ruthless boldness of an extraordinary degree
when some Government drone was on Question Time defending it, and he used the example of some bin men taking over the bin service and running it themselves, thereby liberating themselves from the oppressions of employment blah di blah. I had two reactions to this:
(a) Wait, a Thatcherite Conservative government is trying to set up worker's co-ops? Really?
(b) The refuse service at the Council I worked for was administered under contract by a French multinational, who also did several neighbouring boroughs locally and I'm sure large numbers of other areas nationally. So a Thatcherite Conservative government is trying to help workers co-ops take business away from multinationals?
pretty lols for a Thursday night in the suburbs, yeah
This is like selling the Guttering, supporting Walls and loft insulation.
to it being cheaper for them (although keepinjg taxes) they arn't selling to get cash, they are getting rid of them to avoid having to pay for them.
good money after bad etcetera
in the catchment area of non failing schools/hospitals?
Cos they are c***s who dont deserve our sympathy?
Cos they should have got a job that pays more money so they could just chose through spending thei own private money?
Well thats what CG and Cameron think, bu I wouldnt have thought you would have thought that
i was merely putting forward the argument. An argument put forwards to me by a doctor friend of mine, who constantly bemoans the inefficiencies of the NHS
and i'm not really sure if the ghettoisation you're implying would be a natural conclusion from that sort of thinking
but from a personal standpoint, any sort of privatisation gives me the willies
Politicians know more about politics than you. The people who are responsible for the genesis and development of this White Paper are intelligent, educated and aware of the complex economic, social and political factors involved. You lot are a bunch of nerds, listening to Bon Iver, backslapping each other for reading Zizek and Foucault. Their ideas don't matter in the real world where decisions are made. They're more likely to be right than you. And just because it hasn't been done before on this scale, doesn't mean it's not going to work this time.
And what's the worst case scenario, if to my great surprise, you're proved right, and a bunch of indie bedwetters score an intellectual victory over some of the greatest minds in the nation? You vote for another party and the experiment stops. Not that bad really, is it?
...really. I suppose the biggest issue here is the idea that if it doesn't work then no lasting damage will be done - which is almost, almost, charmingly naive.
And the idea that politicians know more about politics than the likes of you or I is probably accurate. But knowing about politics means fuck all. Do they know enough about the areas - economics, public services, health - that matter to be considered experts in these fields? And I know it will sound glib but do they know enough about the life of the average constituents that are going to be directly affected by the policy?
Will it be a good thing for this country? The only thing it might do is save money and there are serious doubts about whether it will actually save money? Especially in the long term. I point you to the PPP school and hospital rebuilding scheme which is not a long term money saver - admittedly not a Tory policy but surely this goes beyond which party you support.
Surely this should be a debate about this policy and its possible ramifications. I think it will not work and will damage the country. What do you think?
And also ignoring the fact people who work in these departments often have a theoretical rather than a practical grasp of how government systems work. They'll have studied politics and development but likely as not spent limited time actually on the front line of these things looking at what actually happens.
I actually agree with the basic principle that the welfare state hasn't worked as well as was hoped in the 1940s and radical solutions are needed but it's not just a case of this not having been done before on this scale - it's also the fact when it's been done on a smaller scale it's seldom worked.
I'm not a fan of the free market but in a way, in cases like this, that's not even the point as what you see isn't free market economics. Free market economics can only work or operate in industries where there isn't a political need to ensure organisations don't fail. What you'll end up here instead, as you've ended up with in other cases of privatisation of the public sector is a horrifically ineffective compromise that isn't really free market, isn't really state welfare and has the disadvantages of both and the advantages as neither as it lurches toward mediocrity and near-inevitable failure.
I find it hard to find any evidence that it won't.
...but it has been a long time since I've been a srudent.
It will probably affect the everyday life of every resident of the UK if it is a success; David Cameron's idea of success that is - lots of people buying into it.
If it has zero impact then it will have been a massive embarrassing failure - fingers crossed guys.
It's the people at the bottom of the ladder who get fucked over by these things.
Sweden has had Free Schools for nearly 20 years now and what started out as an 'opportunity' for 'individuals' to 'make their own choices' has drastically changed
Just yesterday for instance a Free School chain called Acadamedia bought a Free School chain called Pysslingen for roughly £70million bringing their total assets to some 250 Swedish schools, Pre-Schools and colleges - that's 58,000 students.
This is notable because Academia is run by a risk capital group. They bought Pysslingen from the Danish risk capital group that bought Pysslingen in 2009 and in doing so fought off the competition of Providence - a US risk capital group.
What is at work here?
Well, essentially the mechanism is that the schools receive, at the beginning of each term, the same tax allocation per pupil as state schools (it would be unfair on the pupils otherwise) and they then use that money to gamble on markets, bonds, currencies, investments etc. They run the schools at the minimum acceptable standard with a 1-size-fits-all IKEA-style template benefitting from economies of scale and they cream off the profits for individual board-members - often politicians incidentally.
You can see why a company like Acadamedia would be keen to grow their student base to 58,000. It means they get a guaranteed up front payment equivalent to £16,000 per pupil x 58,000 which equals a STAGGERING £928MILLION to play with.
Of course they have to run schools and it's not cheap to run schools but they have become money siphoning & gambling operations.
Have the children suffered? It's hard to say but certainly there have been high profile stories in the media here of corporate influence in the classrooms and textbooks written to hold sponsors in good light
The big question is, what happens if the company takes too big a risk and the markets fail them? What happens to those 58,000 kids? Do they just take a hit and end up failed? Or is a company like Acadamedia 'too big to fail' and thus require even MORE public money to bail out ?
Expand this scenario to hospitals, care homes and any other services which automatically get allocated a treasury spend per capita in you see where Cameron's White Paper could lead Britain in 20 years time - except it wont be IKEA-style services, it'll be Ryanair-style services and it probably wont take 20 years
they fail and there is not the further dosh to bail em out?
probably re-mortgaged ones
...especially the RyanAir insight. It will be quick buck central.
Troy: Now, turn to the next problem. If you have three Pepsis and drink one, how much more refreshed are you? You, the redhead in the Chicago school system?
Troy: Partial credit!
Diplomas in McEnglish and Coca Cola Chemistry
In theory at least, regulation can be put in place to prevent things like "money siphoning & gambling", no?
but in a so-called free market economy how exactly do you prevent risk capital firms from buying out companies with guaranteed cash-flow sources?
In a free market economy, you don't. It won't be a free market though; it will be a regulated market. Exactly what form regulation will take (for those of us who haven't seen the white paper, anyway, and maybe even for those who have - I don't know what goes into these things) and whether or not it will be sufficient to prevent the sort of thing you're talking about remains to be seen, but it's no foregone conclusion that it won't be.
into the mass sell-off of all but military & frontline police?
and even if we did, if they attempted to privatise the NHS and state school system without introducing significant regulation, I doubt the party would survive, never mind the government.
an this is a conservative lead white paper
and you know as well as I do that the kind of proposals involved in 'ending the state monopoly' on public services will result foreign ownership, asset stripping and whole areas of the UK being poorly served as they simply aren't profitable
you should look it up - it's socialism in a nutshell and has basically been the mainstay of Swedish society since the 30s up until the mid 90s
The success of the Swedish education system is being eroded by the Free School system - which incidentally was introduced in that mid-90s period of recession and devaluation of the Swedish Kronor after the Swedish banking sector collapsed following deregulation by a 1 term right wing Govt.
but I digress
the point is this;
privatising health, education and care services will not save the State any money, is likely to actually cost them more and will almost inevitably result - like everything else in the market place - in the corporatisation of these fields.
You and many people may feel comfortable turning future generations of schoolchildren or cancer sufferers into market commodities to be traded but the attendant vulnerabilities of the market place are either
a) going to lead to major crisis for a large number of people as service providers go bankrupt/cut their losses and run/seek new markets elsewhere
b) be a huge financial headache for the State as they are forced to bail out such failures at the bottom of the market
...with regulation but inevitable without.
I suppose for me the problem is motivation. If you are motivated by profit then I can't see how public services are going to meet the needs of every member of society. They don't even manage that at the moment but with making a profit as a concern I can't see it at all.
This idea of turning services over to the public - the actual plebs, the average bloke on the street, anyone remotely working class - is just a total fallacy.
Unlike other governments who've tried to improve or fix public services that they feel are failing, Cameron's opted to absolve himself of all responsibility.
Now the lowest bidder will take control and if the quality's not good enough then don't come crying to the Govt.: you should should have spent your money on something else. It's not their fault.
What will anyone have left to promise the electorate?
due to their diligent management of the economy (selling everything off)
though personally I'd like the freedom to be able to hire my own private security and Militia
And of course all the subsidies for the private companies that are running the public services.
Well... the property management company does on the collective behalf of the local residents.
I want to be able to hire my own private Police Squad
that must be the 3rd time I've done that today
what a klutz
But (in this situation, at least) private security is effectively equivalent to a Community Support Officer.
Next to useless if the real shit goes down, but better than CCTV in terms of a presence on the ground.
People have mentioned the Swedish free schools system. The idea that if it was implemented on a wider scale basis in the UK that there wouldn't be legislation to adequately protect the welfare of children is pretty shaky. Education is obviously, of critical importance to society. The idea that in future, legislation would be rushed through without sufficient oversight and scrutiny from MP's, committees, stakeholders and the media is a far-fetched one.
Legislation is needed to protect from the nightmare possiblity of hundreds, thousands of schools going bankrupt overnight. But providing that legislation isn't an impossible task; you need clear, well written legislation on how free schools and organisations that own groups of free schools can guarantee financial stability and provide financial transparency. You also need back-up plans in place to continue education for students at short notice if a school or group of schools was to go bankrupt. Existing competition legislation should also prevent a monopoly emerging in free-school primary, secondary or tertiary education.
Given the current crises in the education system in this country, with grade inflation, lowering standards compared to other G20 nations and decreasing social mobility, it's not ludicrous to think that the current system isn't "failing" already.
And finally, what Anschul did ignore in his posts above was whether free schools actually provide a better education for the pupil. He skirted that issue. I wonder why?
I should have wrote that, "Implementing adequate safeguards, checks and balances on the new free schools is possible, and should not be seen as an insurmountable obstacle to their implementation".
is that trust in the government's ability to put safeguards in place is declining (see the NHS debacle) and the minister in charge of putting this stuff together is seen by many (including a large number of teachers) as having a poor grip on his brief.
Along with currently privatised assets failing at the moment (care homes, inability to get the energy market and rail companies under control), it's a difficult sell to suggest to the wider public that even more key public services should be privatised right now and 'we will get it right this time, honest'. Not an impossible sell, but a difficult one.
I wish a govenment would actually leave the school system alone for more than 6 months to see if their constant tweeks actually have any effect rather than pissing around with it all the time.
is a puzzlement that grades appear to be going up
and yet knowledge and skills appear to be dwindling
but I understand there is a similar paradox in the UK
perhaps it has something to do with competition and league tables and all of that funk that schools are under more pressure to SHOW they are performing well and are thus given less time and resources to actually perform well
not quite sure how privatisation is going to fix that
and they'll end up teaching kids how to pass exams, not providing a well rounded education.
or, in the case of the poorly regulated private sector, just change the grades or lobby the Government or something
It's about what you're legislating against.
Legislating re: teachers employed by LAs is a whole different game of frisbees compared to the required legislation should private enterprise or single intertest groups decide they fancy running an indoctrin... sorry 'Free School'.
i.e they forget that no doubt the 'general consensus' of every generation has probably been that knowledge and skills are dwindling.
And there's one thing that the current administration hasn't learnt from the last one - that this kind of thing actually decreases social mobility and leads to the poorer people having LESS of the choice that David Cameron is utopianly attempting to create. The overt ranking of schools has led to higher demand for housing in the areas that the best performing schools are in. Therefore, ensuring that people who can afford more expensive houses are significantly more likely to have access to higher quality schools.
Also, the New Labourite obsession with ranking schools, hospitals, police forces etc. based on simple number-based metrics (waiting times being a classic example) has led to these institutions actively manipulating figures and behaviours in order to distort them to make them look better.
The model simply doesn't achieve the 2 key things that David Cameron wants it to achieve: a) a higher quality of public services and b) greater freedoms of choice for the economically disadvantaged.
Seems to work ok in Singapore and Holland? (correct me if I'm wrong). Surely it's more about the specific arrangement, rather than 'private sector for health = only bad things'?
in implementation, regulation etc., alongside the profit motive driving 'public' services + exposure to the whims of the market etc.
the fact is that in all these public areas the market is involved - precurement of pharmaceuticals, textbooks or what-have-you - but the public sector element is there to rigidly control (in theory) equal access to services for all
and that's the conflict; if you insist that private companies must provide equal care or level of service to both rich and poor alike you are competing with the very premise of capitalism and probably either forcing people into debt, or providing lowest common denominator goods/services
What I don't understand about this particular Government though is why they are trying to sell this idea on misleading terms
There are perfectly legitimate reasons in the UK interest to march ahead with Free Schools etc. but they aren't actually being used as the selling points which makes me suspicious as to whether the policy has even been properly thought through in the range and scope of future scenarios or whether it's a simple fundraiser for future vote-winning tax cuts
are more trying to offload costs.
Selling off what they sold before made more sense.
Whereas this stuff is not worth buying because if someone buys something that is meant to provide care then the privatised business will have to get funds from the government and it really isnt going to want to do that because it needs to save money (although i dont think they have thought it through far. .......although the making the squatting illegal shows a bit of forethought....to the point of, more people will have foreclosures and get evicted from their homes, and the gov is preparing legislation to stop all these families from trying to move back into their old properties (now empty) ......but then of course the gov will have the problem of finding somewhere for the children (if not the adults, who can sleep on the streets (but not westminster or wandsworth)) which would cost money.....although i suppose they can now say, well its not out responsibility to house the children......."the public can now do that" "It is no longer the responsibility of gov" Hurrah!
"What? you want to know if you can pay less tax, cos the gov doesnt supply services any more? ,.....no sorry, the gov needs that money to pay itself and to pay back loans and help banks, and to pay the army and police to protect them from you"
Well thats one way of looking at it...
but srsly, they are more selling off to avoid having to pay for them
either get bigger welfare burden, or they will have to change other welfare provision for the public....then again its only me that looks this far and so i am probably mad and wrong to do this, after all normal humans think its wrong to extrapolate too far, and i am certainly not normal
there really is a SOLID GOLD reason for doing this but the Government aren't telling you what it is because they either think the public are too stupid to understand it or they haven't thought of it for themselves yet
or a few of them have but they don't want to shout about it in case too many people get too many big ideas and muscle in
(apart from them being craven) becuase I have no evidence or examples(for this admin) to acuse them with, as yet. and that would just hand the floor to cg and his cohorts (:D)