http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/22/suffolk-county-council-outsource-services

I don’t see how this makes any sense at all. A council thinks that it can save money by outsourcing services to private businesses with little to no accountability. Surely a private enterprise exists to turn a profit and a Council (if providing a service) is unable to do this if it is directly paying for the service, so how do they think they can make a 30% saving by outsourcing everything to a load of private companies who will be trying to make a profit at every turn!

i am well aware that councils are normally inefficiently run, but i fail to see how this will be an improvement.

Take British Rail for example, prior to privatisation the DFT had about 5 full time employees managing BR, now they employ about 5,000 which is in addition to all the staff the TOCs, ROSCOs, NR etc employ…

Most organisations (public and private) don’t factor in the costs of managing such a procurement/contract – as usually the numbers will ‘screw’ the strategy…

I’ve performed many post-implementation/acquisition reviews, in only a few cases do the budgetary predictions actually add up. But what usually derails them is that they only plan/budget for the ‘good things’, not that ‘shit happens’.

And its also very difficult to ensure that long-term contracts work, plus the difficulty of ‘shifting’ tied-in suppliers. And with this been the public sector, the tendering process will be that complicated/expensive that only corporates will be able to bid – consequently what you’ll see is local authority cash moving out of the local economy (ie wages) and into the country/offshore economy. Double-dip.

All libraries, offices,leisure entres to be given to the private sector, then the people pay to use them, that would sabve millions.

so they would become so expensive that only people wealthy enough would use them? brilliant, how to widen the social gap. big society in action.

and you think councils are run efficiently in house? rubbish, there are planning departments across the country where less than 1/2 the staff are actually available to do work… nothing gets done.

I guess in theory it seems fine. The council is there to facilitate the provision of services. Whether it provides those services itself or outsources them to a 3rd party is pretty irrelevant. Just like when you by a bike, you don’t expect the company to have mined the raw materials, produced the tubes, joined them in their own factory and manufactured all the associated components. The fact that these other companies are in it purely to make a profit, doesn’t mean that you could more economically provide the service in house.
You do expect them to provide a product that meets your expectations though.
I suspect it’s this last bit that might be problematic in the council’s case.

I’d imagine the 30% figure is largely pulled out of someone’s ass but you can certainly make efficiency savings in private sector outsourcing let alone public sector. The company I work for does IT and business process outsourcing, we usually end up getting rid of any contractors quickly and then middle management and duplicated roles as soon as possible via redundancy afterwards. TUPE provides some protection but not a whole lot if the role itself becomes redundant.

All libraries, offices,leisure entres to be given to the private sector, then the people pay to use them

We already do pay for them.

And save millions for who precisely – us, the ordinary people who want good local services available on an equal basis to everyone, or corporate business, which wants to pay less tax and make more profit?

This whole deficit-cutting agenda is a huge political smoke-n-mirrors trick – finance capital creates mega global economic crisis, public sector money then used to try to keep the whole system afloat, then blame public sector for the capitalist crisis and cut it to the bone.

Result – more profits for the corporations (including finance), less tax for the rich, slimmed down state outsourcing risk to individuals and families, and poor and vulnerable people blamed for their own predicament. Brilliant! Except the state sector only came into being because private business was so unable to run a whole society and all its infrastructure, so a world without the public sector, with business only, will quickly spin off into fragmentation and chaos. Double-brilliant!!

Also spare a thought for those of us who live in Suffolk, which will quickly become a kind of beautiful desert, but increasingly less beautiful as the corporates continue to plunder unhindered by planning regs and the concerns of local people……….thus evolving into a kind of 21st Century post-apocalyptic wilderness. Even riding will become difficult amonst all the barbed wire, concrete, and chemical pollution of unfettered agribusiness.

Oh for the freedom of the market……….!

This whole deficit-cutting agenda is a huge political smoke-n-mirrors trick – finance capital creates mega global economic crisis, public sector money then used to try to keep the whole system afloat, then blame public sector for the capitalist crisis and cut it to the bone.

Yup. And lots seem to be falling for it.

We already do pay for them.

Which isn’t that fair if you don’t actually use them. I’ve never used a leisure centre or a library in the city where I’ve lived for 18 years, so why have I been forced to pay for these services the whole time?

Which isn’t that fair if you don’t actually use them. I’ve never used a leisure centre or a library in the city where I’ve lived for 18 years, so why have I been forced to pay for these services the whole time?

The same way that I pay for old peoples’ services etc etc etc, thats how it is.

IanMmmm – you poor isolated individual!
Are you very lonely? Is there such a thing as society?

rootes1 – Member
and you think councils are run efficiently in house? rubbish, there are planning departments across the country where less than 1/2 the staff are actually available to do work… nothing gets done.

No, i’m well aware that Councils (and any public body in general) are run very inefficiently, however I’m not convinced that this inefficiency will be made up for by outsourcing on such a large scale.

Take social services for an example – will the Council put a limit on how many people the private company can deal with? what happens when more people need these services? what’s to stop the private company actively looking for more people to deal with and thus increasing their turnover and profits?

What about highway maintenance, imo you’ll find highways in suffolk in a worse state than currently as the contractor will try and do the bare minimum while charging for having done a satisfactory job. What will end up happening is the council will have to employ more and more people to manage the contractors…

Out-sourcing does not work. If the costs are cut then the quality of service will be cut accordingly as a third party has to make a profit. It the quality of service is maintained the the price will reflect that as said third party still needs tidy profit.

The concept of “public services” has been lost by successive governments. Somethings are better run without constantly keeping an eye on margins. In this I would groupessential services such as utilities, public transport and mail.

so how do they think they can make a 30% saving by outsourcing everything to a load of private companies who will be trying to make a profit at every turn!

Some of it is going to magically happen by charities who won’t charge a penny (some of the services libraries provide I think was an example in the article I read). Someone did suggest that this might mean that they get great services in posh areas where everyone has money to support their local area, and rubbish services in poor areas, but hey, it’s a Conservative council, that is what they’re about.

Take social services for an example – will the Council put a limit on how many people the private company can deal with? what happens when more people need these services? what’s to stop the private company actively looking for more people to deal with and thus increasing their turnover and profits?

Or not bothering with difficult cases that will cost them too much in time to deal with.

If you want a great example of how privatisation works, have a look at railway maintenance – I know someone who works in the field and it’s an absolute joke. Several layers of subcontractors all taking a slice, doing lots of pointless work or getting paid even when they don’t turn up – and people wonder why the trains are so expensive now when privatisation was supposed to sort it all out.

inefficient public sector is better than inefficient private sector with a monopoly contract, taking a profit off the top.

I have quite a lot of experience of outsourcing care for the learning disabled – it does sometimes save money but rarely provides a good quality of service.

I am informed by colleagues in privately provided elderly services that their care standards are often worse.

Personally I just hope me and mine stay healthy then drop dead suddenly.

I’m not lonely, and no – there’s no such thing as society. (I could just be saying that for effect though, of course)

My point was that the public sector should have a minimal level of involvement in the provision of non-essential services and where people can afford to pay directly for the services that they use, they should.

This whole deficit-cutting agenda is a huge political smoke-n-mirrors trick – finance capital creates mega global economic crisis, public sector money then used to try to keep the whole system afloat, then blame public sector for the capitalist crisis and cut it to the bone.

+1!

I’ve worked at various places where they’ve outsourced to save money. Usually what happens is the managers implementing it get a nice big promotion and move on. The outsourcing fails to work, they hire people who used to work there back as contractors to fill the gap. THen another bunch of managers has the bright idea of bringing everything back in house, again to ‘save money’ and it all ends up similar to how it was before. This process repeats itself every few years or so.

Which isn’t that fair if you don’t actually use them. I’ve never used a leisure centre or a library in the city where I’ve lived for 18 years, so why have I been forced to pay for these services the whole time?

That is amongst the most pathetic things I have ever read on STW – bravo. You really don’t see or don’t care that society as a whole is better off because those things exist?

I think Ian might be acting contrarily, I would tentatively suggest that it’s not the first time. Sometimes he even laughs at things.

#
IanMmmm – Member

I’m not lonely, and no – there’s no such thing as society. (I could just be saying that for effect though, of course)

My point was that the public sector should have a minimal level of involvement in the provision of non-essential services and where people can afford to pay directly for the services that they use, they should.

and what about services for people who can’t pay. Lets say the disabled. Should they have no access to a swimming pool that will improve their health and wellbeing?

My local leisure centres have been outsourced to DC Leisure – we now have have two brand new facilities which are streets ahead of what was there before. No idea how much they cost our local council though!!

Deliberate antagonisation of the leftists? What? Me?

And I’d say that swimming for medical purposes such as physical rehabilitation is probably an essential service, wouldn’t you?

Not for rehab – just for the usual benefits exercise brings anyone – the point being that this person is unable to earn thus unable to pay.

TJ – We could debate this for a while and I don’t think we’ll agree, so let’s not bother.

Public services such as libraries are wonderful things, inclusive for evreybody and offer the opportunity for people to educate themselves without expense. If you haven’t been in a library for 18 years, I’d suggest having a look in one to see what they are about. They are essential services for a lot of people, the elderley, people with kids, even those who are just lonely and want to get out of the house. The cross section of society who use them always fascinates me. Wonderful, wonderful places.

It would be a very sad day indeed and a regression of society if they were to be given over to the private sector.

IanMmmm has a point though. Why should those who can afford to pay also get it for free?

Same as benefits – how come even the wealthiest parents qualify for Child Benefit? Surely it should be targeted at the less well off?

When I stopped working last year, I worked out that my wife and I could claim for Child Tax Credits of around £40 per month. Although my income has reduced dramatically, I still don’t feel we “deserve” it while there are more needy cases so I’ve never bothered claiming. If these things were more fairly distributed then there would be more cash for the less well off and/or better services.

There’s no doubt you can find local examples of how ‘outsourcing’ works to give better value for money, particularly if it’s work being done by a charitable/voluntary organisation who are pretty tightly regulated in terms of their finances etc.

I’m involved with 2 local voluntary youth work organisations, both of whom are able to do the same work as the council to at least the same, if not higher, standard, on a much lower budget. In part it’s clearly because folk like myself give up a big chunk of time on a voluntary basis to help run the organisation and deliver the work. I think another factor is that small organisations tend to be more careful with the cash, where big organisations, like local authorities, can fritter money away on a range of stuff – Glasgow Culture and Sport’s rebranding to Glasgow Life being a perfect example as they probably blew the equivalent to our operating budget for the year to no obvious benefit for service users.

Once you get beyond that small scale though – operating on a local authority-wide level, I suspect that all the financial ‘dripping taps’ expand too. I suspect anyone who things a large privately owned company doesn’t piss money up the wall to some extent or another is living in dreamland. Factor in the need to turn a profit, and it’s hard to see how it offers the taxpayer better value for money.

Oh and +1 to the statements above observing how this global economic crisis precipitated by the financial sector has now become an issue of ‘cutting waste’ in public services.

I once applied for a job in the council.
Sat across from me at the interview were the bigeest trio of arseholes I’ve ever met. Complete ****.
And these prats were earning loads. I know this because they were clearly ranked above the £28k salary of the post I was in for.
So if outsourcing means the ousting of complete **** like them, who have hidden away untouched inside the council for years, then I’m for it.

Druidh

Same as benefits – how come even the wealthiest parents qualify for Child Benefit? Surely it should be targeted at the less well off?

There are several main reasons for this ( you might not agree but these are the reasons I believe)

1) universal benefits greatly increase take up – so it ensures everyone who needs it gets it – and as they are paid for out of taxation those who don’t need it are paying marginally higher taxes which comes to the same thing in the end.

2) universal benefits reduce the “Effective marginal tax rate” that affects people as they hit the threshold for means tested benefits.
For the sake of explanation say the threshold for entitlement to child benefit is £100 per week and the benefit is £10 a week. If you earn £95 a week you get £10 benefit thus have £105 to spend. Earn £101 a week you get no benefit thus only have £101 to spend. So a pay rise leads you to have less spending power.

3) Universal benefits are significantly cheaper to administer

This is an oversimplification and applies in the main to universal benefits such as child benefit

Child tax credits have a taper that is not very steep to avoid the “high effective marginal tax rate” You will have been on the end of this taper I guess.

The effect of not tapering benefits is to create what is known as the poverty trap – in that its pointless working as every penny you earn reduces benefits. Child tax credit is designed to avoid this.

Some further thoughts:

IanMmm, nice to know you’re an expert in rehab since that’s the area I work in, I’d be pleased to take lessons from you since clearly the sun shines from every orifice you possess.

It seems that lovely Suffolk, where I live, has politically chosen to be the 21st Century equivalent of Westminster and Wandsworth Councils in the 1980s (and we know of the corruption scandals which emerged later from both of these august organisations). The Suffolk Chief Exec, who is bullishly defending her VFM £250K+ salary on the basis the ‘you give me the dosh, and I’ll terminate them’ (all council services) is utterly shameless. For libraries, for instance, she says they can be ‘run by volunteers and located in pubs’………….that’ll be Katherine Cookson and a pint of Adnams please. And takisawa2, she’s one of the best paid local authority employees in the land, and in a different league to your ‘****’, but what she gets is mere expense account crumbs compared to the lions of the private sector, the captains of industry who you would presumably prefer to work for.

Watch this space!

When I stopped working last year, I worked out that my wife and I could claim for Child Tax Credits of around £40 per month. Although my income has reduced dramatically, I still don’t feel we “deserve” it while there are more needy cases so I’ve never bothered claiming. If these things were more fairly distributed then there would be more cash for the less well off and/or better services.

Druidh

Its not a benefit, its your tax money coming back to you – bugger all to do with ‘deserving’. A better system would be one that hadn’t have taken (plus 2 lots of admin) it in the first place.

druidh – Member
IanMmmm has a point though. Why should those who can afford to pay also get it for free?

Means testing for everything – bring it on!

@dekadanse – like you’re an expert in what constitutes value for money in chief executive level renumeration packages?

My point dear boy being that this woman commands the salary she does (about which there is huge consternation locally) on the basis she’s the ‘hit man’ who’ll wipe out all these pesky public sector jobs (of people on fractions of what she’s on)…………but even her in public sector terms bloated income is like a fleabite compared to the private sector gods. So where’s the equity? Or is that swearword where you come from? Mmmmmm?

I don’t believe that the forthcoming cuts are entirely unwarranted by any means, and I’m a public sector worker myself.

However, what concerns me is the fact that those who will decide upon the specific areas that the axe will fall are the very incompetents who have presided over the profligacy and inefficiencies for years.

My own corner of the public sector has expanded it’s management tier furiously over the past 5 years or so. 60K management jobs have rained down like manna from heaven and positions that we always managed without in the past have become ‘indispensible’, at least in the minds of those that fill them.

Our counterpart organisation in the neighbouring county services a population four times greater than our own, and yet they seem to get by with a senior management team of three. How many do we have? With a quarter of their population, we have seen fit to promote a total of 5 to equivalent posts.

Recently 36 middle managers had to reapply for their own jobs, it came as little surprise when every single last one of them remained in posts. In some cases new job titles were invented for them. By way of contrast our 3 person IT support team has been cut to just 1 permanent post!

These turkeys will not be voting for Christmas. The service to the public will suffer and we’ll carry on with an ever more top-heavy corporate hierachy as these Swiss Admirals reign over us.

The situation would have been the same regardless of the outcome from the recent general election, these deadenders multiplied under the watch of the previous administration after all. I just hope that provision has been made for independent reviews of manning levels and asset management rather than trusting the individual management structures across the public sector to decide who should stay and who should go.

If my experience of public sector management is in any way representative of the whole, then such trust is entirely misplaced.

Yours,

Disgusted of Bournemouth.