We own it - Public services for people not profit

[roverstillidie91]

See there is a campaign called 'we own it'.

Is essentially a campaign to state that public services should be brought back into public ownership (which I believe it should)

It has been suggested on the website privatization has been linked to '557 deaths'. Which if true is shocking.

https://weownit.org.uk/people-not-profit

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Shouldn't we judge on effectiveness?  Would you rather have a company making a profit giving a good service or a public owned entity given a rubbish one?

I have zero preference as long as it's the best.

[tyke1962]

Shouldn't we judge on effectiveness?  Would you rather have a company making a profit giving a good service or a public owned entity given a rubbish one?

I have zero preference as long as it's the best.

Which former public service that is now run for profit is better as a consequence than the previous state owned model ?

[SydneyRover]

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

I can't really speak for it now.  But I did used to work within it for a number of years.  There were various key metrics we used when taking services on to see if we'd both improved and made money and usually we achieved both, not always granted as some contracts weren't favourable for us (but that then was for the authority).

Just about every contract I worked on was with labour councils amongst various public bodies.

Very frequently with things like catering elements we could make it work so much more effective that we made money and the council's increased their element aswell (usually more substantially).

On the same vein there were some contracts horrendously agreed by local authorities.  Clearly they were only as good as they were agreed.

[SydneyRover]

I can't speak for you pud but how long would you give a management company to show they know to to run the business before terminating the contract and putting it out to tender, do you wait until the buildings crumble and staff leave in droves?

Why is it that the NHS needs 40 new hospitals, is it mismanagement from those in charge that have not had a full maintenance and renewal program in place?

[SydneyRover]

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

I can't really speak for it now.  But I did used to work within it for a number of years.  There were various key metrics we used when taking services on to see if we'd both improved and made money and usually we achieved both, not always granted as some contracts weren't favourable for us (but that then was for the authority).

Just about every contract I worked on was with labour councils amongst various public bodies.

Very frequently with things like catering elements we could make it work so much more effective that we made money and the council's increased their element aswell (usually more substantially).

On the same vein there were some contracts horrendously agreed by local authorities.  Clearly they were only as good as they were agreed.

I guess you'd have to include staffing in those metrics pud, staffing levels, competency, training programs and work satisfaction because as you must understand very well it's not a happy ship if the crew are enjoying the trip?

Let's look at staffing in the NHS, Police, Education, transport, Lawyers ............... etc. I guess if ideology gets in the way and governments want services in private hands they could easily pretend they are totally incompetent or just underfund them aye?

[SydneyRover]

Which completes the circle, if you cannot run the economy because you have chosen ideology over  well proven methods then there is not the funds in treasury to pay the bills which only means one thing to a ideological driven government, change direction and make sound economic decisions cuts and underfunding across the board and hope that the private sector can take up the slack.

[roverstillidie91]

I can't speak for you pud but how long would you give a management company to show they know to to run the business before terminating the contract and putting it out to tender, do you wait until the buildings crumble and staff leave in droves?

Why is it that the NHS needs 40 new hospitals, is it mismanagement from those in charge that have not had a full maintenance and renewal program in place?

I'd imagine it won't require new hospital as there probably isn't enough staff to run it

[SydneyRover]

Shouldn't we judge on effectiveness?  Would you rather have a company making a profit giving a good service or a public owned entity given a rubbish one?

I have zero preference as long as it's the best.

Could you give some examples of other countries that have more insurance based private health that give better value for money or some other metric/s pud? as it would give a big boost to your argument.

[grayx]

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

Thats easy….. there isn’t one.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Shouldn't we judge on effectiveness?  Would you rather have a company making a profit giving a good service or a public owned entity given a rubbish one?

I have zero preference as long as it's the best.

Could you give some examples of other countries that have more insurance based private health that give better value for money or some other metric/s pud? as it would give a big boost to your argument.

Generally a mix (which is what I would do) works quite well. A number of countries have it, South Korea for example which is known to have a good system.

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

I can't really speak for it now.  But I did used to work within it for a number of years.  There were various key metrics we used when taking services on to see if we'd both improved and made money and usually we achieved both, not always granted as some contracts weren't favourable for us (but that then was for the authority).

Just about every contract I worked on was with labour councils amongst various public bodies.

Very frequently with things like catering elements we could make it work so much more effective that we made money and the council's increased their element aswell (usually more substantially).

On the same vein there were some contracts horrendously agreed by local authorities.  Clearly they were only as good as they were agreed.

I guess you'd have to include staffing in those metrics pud, staffing levels, competency, training programs and work satisfaction because as you must understand very well it's not a happy ship if the crew are enjoying the trip?

Let's look at staffing in the NHS, Police, Education, transport, Lawyers ............... etc. I guess if ideology gets in the way and governments want services in private hands they could easily pretend they are totally incompetent or just underfund them aye?

They are in some cases metrics you'd track, they'd change dependent on the service, industry etc, our KPI reviews were massive and the contracts super complicated.  One thing to note is typically in public sector provision you may offer part of a service under a contractor or private provider but not all.  It can generate a good mix.

Worth mentioning pretty much every client I worked with was a labour run council, perhaps not surprising being based in the north, but they clearly weren't against it at a local level, I also worked on a lot of the PFI contracts set up in the 2000s, now those contracts were crazy. At a service level brilliant value, the financing elements were horrendously bad though and made companies huge amounts for funding them and offering nothing.

I mentioned years ago how shocking some of the waste was to me in the councils we supported. We often made the contracts profitable just from refusing some of the daft requests. A lot of that of course was because of the funding mechanisms in the public sector, particularly the use it or lose it type approach.

Granted I haven't worked in that area for 5 years now so it may well be very different.  When you see it you learn some things can be done super effectively by private companies, but equally some cannot.

[SydneyRover]

Would you get better value for money with a mix pud?

[SydneyRover]

Is south Korea a fair comparison does the country have a mix of systems has it been examined and compared?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

I can't really speak for it now.  But I did used to work within it for a number of years.  There were various key metrics we used when taking services on to see if we'd both improved and made money and usually we achieved both, not always granted as some contracts weren't favourable for us (but that then was for the authority).

Just about every contract I worked on was with labour councils amongst various public bodies.

Very frequently with things like catering elements we could make it work so much more effective that we made money and the council's increased their element aswell (usually more substantially).

On the same vein there were some contracts horrendously agreed by local authorities.  Clearly they were only as good as they were agreed.

You're talking about working as a subcontractor. This thread is talking about ownership ie being in control of any subcontracting.

[tyke1962]

Shouldn't we judge on effectiveness?  Would you rather have a company making a profit giving a good service or a public owned entity given a rubbish one?

I have zero preference as long as it's the best.

Could you give some examples of other countries that have more insurance based private health that give better value for money or some other metric/s pud? as it would give a big boost to your argument.

Generally a mix (which is what I would do) works quite well. A number of countries have it, South Korea for example which is known to have a good system.

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

I can't really speak for it now.  But I did used to work within it for a number of years.  There were various key metrics we used when taking services on to see if we'd both improved and made money and usually we achieved both, not always granted as some contracts weren't favourable for us (but that then was for the authority).

Just about every contract I worked on was with labour councils amongst various public bodies.

Very frequently with things like catering elements we could make it work so much more effective that we made money and the council's increased their element aswell (usually more substantially).

On the same vein there were some contracts horrendously agreed by local authorities.  Clearly they were only as good as they were agreed.

I guess you'd have to include staffing in those metrics pud, staffing levels, competency, training programs and work satisfaction because as you must understand very well it's not a happy ship if the crew are enjoying the trip?

Let's look at staffing in the NHS, Police, Education, transport, Lawyers ............... etc. I guess if ideology gets in the way and governments want services in private hands they could easily pretend they are totally incompetent or just underfund them aye?

They are in some cases metrics you'd track, they'd change dependent on the service, industry etc, our KPI reviews were massive and the contracts super complicated.  One thing to note is typically in public sector provision you may offer part of a service under a contractor or private provider but not all.  It can generate a good mix.

Worth mentioning pretty much every client I worked with was a labour run council, perhaps not surprising being based in the north, but they clearly weren't against it at a local level, I also worked on a lot of the PFI contracts set up in the 2000s, now those contracts were crazy. At a service level brilliant value, the financing elements were horrendously bad though and made companies huge amounts for funding them and offering nothing.

I mentioned years ago how shocking some of the waste was to me in the councils we supported. We often made the contracts profitable just from refusing some of the daft requests. A lot of that of course was because of the funding mechanisms in the public sector, particularly the use it or lose it type approach.

Granted I haven't worked in that area for 5 years now so it may well be very different.  When you see it you learn some things can be done super effectively by private companies, but equally some cannot.

I'll ask again , can you name one sector that has benefited from the transfer from public ownership to private ?

I'm specifically alluding to the Rail Industry , Water , Royal Mail and the Energy sector .

[ravenrover]

All of them............ to their shareholders!

[SydneyRover]

Pud are you suggesting that with more experience such as your own the more privatisation the better the system becomes? Although you haven't cited anything as yet, no attempt to compare equal countries, no comparison as to what a country spends to what the outcomes are for those using the the service and those working within. Something along those lines would be handy in this discussion.

[roverstillidie91]

I think this could be an issue for Labour for the next general election as it is still unclear whether they want to bring more privatisation in the NHS and with not having a position where he stands with the unions and its members/families etc.

That saying didn't he when campaigned to be leader he was going to re-nationalise all over the public services? Seems to not be confirming either way if this is the case now.

[SydneyRover]

As you seem to have lost interest pud and haven't supported your 'hearsay'

''Key Findings: The top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process''

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly

And this is the system you appear to be happy with and your team definitely wants more of, as an economic rationalist I thought you'd go for the system that gives the best returns, no?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Sydney, it's interesting, but it's not my life....

Firstly the only teams I have are my little family and  football team so I'm not quite sure what you mean? I'm a mere individual (thankfully).

The study you've mentioned is quite narrow only viewing a small range of countries  indeed there are multiple metrics and different conclusions as ever.

https://ceoworld.biz/2021/04/27/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2021/

The article above is quite interesting, indeed it demonstrates multiple different solutions and views, which is largely my point. It isn't and shouldn't be one size fits all.

Shouldn't we judge on effectiveness?  Would you rather have a company making a profit giving a good service or a public owned entity given a rubbish one?

I have zero preference as long as it's the best.

Could you give some examples of other countries that have more insurance based private health that give better value for money or some other metric/s pud? as it would give a big boost to your argument.

Generally a mix (which is what I would do) works quite well. A number of countries have it, South Korea for example which is known to have a good system.

Which public services provide a better service now than they did in 2010 taking into consideration 13 years of management and investment by tory governments?

I can't really speak for it now.  But I did used to work within it for a number of years.  There were various key metrics we used when taking services on to see if we'd both improved and made money and usually we achieved both, not always granted as some contracts weren't favourable for us (but that then was for the authority).

Just about every contract I worked on was with labour councils amongst various public bodies.

Very frequently with things like catering elements we could make it work so much more effective that we made money and the council's increased their element aswell (usually more substantially).

On the same vein there were some contracts horrendously agreed by local authorities.  Clearly they were only as good as they were agreed.

I guess you'd have to include staffing in those metrics pud, staffing levels, competency, training programs and work satisfaction because as you must understand very well it's not a happy ship if the crew are enjoying the trip?

Let's look at staffing in the NHS, Police, Education, transport, Lawyers ............... etc. I guess if ideology gets in the way and governments want services in private hands they could easily pretend they are totally incompetent or just underfund them aye?

They are in some cases metrics you'd track, they'd change dependent on the service, industry etc, our KPI reviews were massive and the contracts super complicated.  One thing to note is typically in public sector provision you may offer part of a service under a contractor or private provider but not all.  It can generate a good mix.

Worth mentioning pretty much every client I worked with was a labour run council, perhaps not surprising being based in the north, but they clearly weren't against it at a local level, I also worked on a lot of the PFI contracts set up in the 2000s, now those contracts were crazy. At a service level brilliant value, the financing elements were horrendously bad though and made companies huge amounts for funding them and offering nothing.

I mentioned years ago how shocking some of the waste was to me in the councils we supported. We often made the contracts profitable just from refusing some of the daft requests. A lot of that of course was because of the funding mechanisms in the public sector, particularly the use it or lose it type approach.

Granted I haven't worked in that area for 5 years now so it may well be very different.  When you see it you learn some things can be done super effectively by private companies, but equally some cannot.

I'll ask again , can you name one sector that has benefited from the transfer from public ownership to private ?

I'm specifically alluding to the Rail Industry , Water , Royal Mail and the Energy sector .

Again, I'd question this point.  You don't have to make a whole sector private more parts of it to give alternatives. Imagine if the only way you could send post and parcels was royal mail, we'd all be screwed right now given they're incapable of getting their infrastructure in place.  There's no harm in having a publicly owned entity, there should be, but run them in competition with the private sector and give people that choice, it would make the whole thing much stronger.

[SydneyRover]

Thanks for the reply pud, I call the tories your team as they are with a single exception in local government the only 'team' you have voted for, 4 out 4 times if my memory serves me right? As for the 'narrow' study I posted it's infinitely wider than a wave your hand towards Korea and proclaiming high ground. I look forward to some facts.

[SydneyRover]

Sorry pud didn't see your comment at the bottom of your post, would you like to show how any privately run public service is doing it better?

Trains, gotta love what they've done there aye?

Water and Sewage, shame they keep mixing the two aye?

NHS, 13 years of love and attention.

Education, why on earth did they give it to gavin bloody williamson aye?

etc

Oooh let's not forget energy suppliers aye? the thing is when the private sector get their sticky mitts into natural monopolies they want subsidies, regular subsidies and pollies want their mates in there too on high wages while they strip the joint.

[i_ateallthepies]

"There's no harm in having a publicly owned entity, there should be, but run them in competition with the private sector and give people that choice, it would make the whole thing much stronger"

But in the case of health provision the private sectors would only want to do the simpler easy-money work leaving the high complexity stuff to the NHS.  "Run in competition" my arse!