Public sector watch

[FiF]

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

My point is that.............the vast majority of negative comments aimed at public service troughing is equally applicable to the private sector.

I asked this once before:
Can you give me the equivalent to the troughing NHS managers that I have a legal obligation to fund via taxation? I don't think you can.

You said things but didn't actually answer the question. Care for another go? What private sector mamagers am I legally obliged to fund, who take the piss with public funds? Name five, to match the 5 NHS bods referred to earlier.

Quite. And still nobody has said it was not acceptable. The nearest has been a an aaccusation along the lines of 'but they're just as bad.'

[johnfm]

FiF said:

Quite. And still nobody has said it was not acceptable. The nearest has been a an aaccusation along the lines of 'but they're just as bad.'

FIF

My point isn't whether or not people point at the private sector and froth - I think there is a separate thread for the other tribe to do that.

My point is that many of those on both teams fail to acknowledge at all that not only are troughers in public or private sectors 'just as bad', but that a proportion of the 'private sector' is merely a pseudo public sector, mismanaging billions of tax payer funds with equal abandon as their much maligned PS brethren.

It is, however, an unpalatable truth for many in the 'private sector' tribe.

[Rovinghawk]

johnfm said:

That you ignore the similarity between public servants directly employed and those pseudo public servants indirectly employed is your choice.

I've built hospitals- it doesn't make me an NHS employee. I've built schools- it doesn't make me part of the department of education. I've built roads- it doesn't make me an employee of the Highways agency.
I fail to see the similarity despite having actually been in that position. That's probably because it's not similar.

johnfm said:

My point is that many of those on both teams fail to acknowledge at all that not only are troughers in public or private sectors 'just as bad', but that a proportion of the 'private sector' is merely a pseudo public sector, mismanaging billions of tax payer funds with equal abandon as their much maligned PS brethren.

The role of the private sector is to make as much money as possible; that's why they're in business.

The role of the public sector should be to ensure that tax revenue is spent as wisely as possible to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers.

The first is achieving its purpose (regardless of moral views), the second is failing to do its job properly.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 14th May 16:00

[johnfm]

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

My point is that many of those on both teams fail to acknowledge at all that not only are troughers in public or private sectors 'just as bad', but that a proportion of the 'private sector' is merely a pseudo public sector, mismanaging billions of tax payer funds with equal abandon as their much maligned PS brethren.

The role of the private sector is to make as much money as possible; that's why they're in business.

The role of the public sector should be to ensure that tax revenue is spent as wisely as possible to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers.

The first is achieving its purpose (regardless of moral views), the second is failing to do its job properly.

"The role of the private sector is to make as much money as possible; that's why they're in business." I am not sure you understand the definition of the word 'role' - but that is probably the subject of a wider philosophical debate. Maybe you mean "one of the motives of the private sector is to..", bearing in mind not all owners of private companies share your motivation to 'make as much money as possible'.


"The role of the public sector should be to ensure that tax revenue is spent as wisely as possible to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers." According to whom? I assume that is your "should be", as I expect the role of the public sector varies with its function - for example I think the role of government schools is to educate children rather than to ensure tax revenue is spent to ensure maximum benefit.

You raise two interesting points:

1. "The first is achieving its purpose (regardless of moral views)". Do you think economics can be separated from ethics? You may wish to read further here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/0...


2. "to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers" - this sounds to me that you adhere to utilitarian views, where decisions should be made in order to maximise utility to the greatest number. Yet your views on public sector v private sector suggest a more libertarian approach to your politics, wherein you should be free from excessive state interference, taxation and meddling. Which one is it?

Edited by johnfm on Wednesday 14th May 16:25

[Rovinghawk]

johnfm said:

Maybe you mean "one of the motives of the private sector is to..", bearing in mind not all owners of private companies share your motivation to 'make as much money as possible'.

For the PLCs it's a legal requirement to maximise shareholder benefit. Private companies exist to do business- otherwise they're called charities.

johnfm said:

"The role of the public sector should be to ensure that tax revenue is spent as wisely as possible to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers." According to whom? I assume that is your "should be", as I expect the role of the public sector varies with its function - for example I think the role of government schools are to educate children rather than to ensure tax revenue is spent to ensure maximum benefit.

I think it's to get the best education for the budget available- that fits very well with my earlier statement which you've so kindly quoted.

johnfm said:

1. "The first is achieving its purpose (regardless of moral views)". Do you think economics can be separated from ethics?

Of course- they're two totally separate subjects.

johnfm said:

2. "to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers" - this sounds to me that you adhere to utilitarian views, where decisions should be made in order to maximise utility to the greatest number. Yet your views on public sector v private sector suggest a more libertarian approach to your politics, wherein you should be free from excessive state interference, taxation and meddling. Which one is it?

Minimum interference in private affairs; just enough to do what needs to be done.

OTOH I don't see making & enforcing a contract to be government interference- it's making & keeping a deal, no more, no less. They make a deal with a contractor, they sew it up tightly, they ensure that it's done as per agreement. Unfortunately, they don't seem to do this properly.

[johnfm]

johnfm said:
1. "The first is achieving its purpose (regardless of moral views)". Do you think economics can be separated from ethics?
Of course- they're two totally separate subjects.


In that case, what would be your view on a market in body parts for transplants? Or fees for child adoption? Or the de-regulation of the supply of potable water?

I am not convinced that economics and ethics can be separated. Evidence would suggest that regulation is the embodiment of ethical limits imposed on the 'free' market.

[Rovinghawk]

johnfm said:

what would be your view on a market in body parts for transplants? Or fees for child adoption? Or the de-regulation of the supply of potable water?

They are banned for basically ethical reasons. There is therefore no business available, regardless of economics.
I consider it neither good nor bad; it's just the way it is.

johnfm said:

I am not convinced that economics and ethics can be separated. Evidence would suggest that regulation is the embodiment of ethical limits imposed on the 'free' market.

They both exist, government forces them to interact. A light regulation to prevent excess & abuse is necessary but any interference inevitably has unforeseen & unfortunate consequences.

[johnfm]

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

what would be your view on a market in body parts for transplants? Or fees for child adoption? Or the de-regulation of the supply of potable water?

They are banned for basically ethical reasons. There is therefore no business available, regardless of economics.
I consider it neither good nor bad; it's just the way it is.

Of course, that is the way it is now. Not long ago there was a booming economic trade in the buying and selling of people. My point is that there are areas where ethics and economics cannot be separated neatly.

[mph1977]

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

Maybe you mean "one of the motives of the private sector is to..", bearing in mind not all owners of private companies share your motivation to 'make as much money as possible'.

For the PLCs it's a legal requirement to maximise shareholder benefit. Private companies exist to do business- otherwise they're called charities.

A company has no obligation to make money or do business, a charity however does have an obligation to 'do business' i.e. fulfill it;s charitable aims and is often restrcted into transacting in a cost neutral or profitable for the charity manner

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

"The role of the public sector should be to ensure that tax revenue is spent as wisely as possible to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers." According to whom? I assume that is your "should be", as I expect the role of the public sector varies with its function - for example I think the role of government schools are to educate children rather than to ensure tax revenue is spent to ensure maximum benefit.

I think it's to get the best education for the budget available- that fits very well with my earlier statement which you've so kindly quoted.

the problem is as usual with the typical PHer , even without Mr. Roving of the family Hawk;s Freewibble overtones, is that they seem to beleive they speak for the majority

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

1. "The first is achieving its purpose (regardless of moral views)". Do you think economics can be separated from ethics?

Of course- they're two totally separate subjects.

typical RH freewibble , ethics and economics are intertwined in the real world henace the legal frameworks surrounding many transactions ...

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

2. "to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers" - this sounds to me that you adhere to utilitarian views, where decisions should be made in order to maximise utility to the greatest number. Yet your views on public sector v private sector suggest a more libertarian approach to your politics, wherein you should be free from excessive state interference, taxation and meddling. Which one is it?

Minimum interference in private affairs; just enough to do what needs to be done.
[/quote}

which is either 'libertarian' or 'freewibbler' , the main difference between the libertarian and the freewibbler is that the libertarians immaturity / sociopathy is not dressed up in the magickal Language and It's Special Meanings of the Freewibbler and that the soft libertarian approach is actually within the bounds of what society deems normal /acceptable.

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

Countdown said:

Shareholders have no idea of the little perks that Senior management enjoy in large corporations. For example CEO spends £20k fitting out his office with plasma screen and lots of toys, insisting on first class travel, regular meals out and corporate entertaining on his procurement card - who exactly do you think picks this up and reports it to the Board or shareholders?

I can sell my Glaxo shares or stop buying Persil a damn sight easier than I can move abroad.

Are you going to ask your GP to stop using taxpayers money to prescribe you Glaxo drugs?

[otolith]

mph1977 said:

the libertarians immaturity / sociopathy

Ooh, pathologising political dissent. Old school.

[mph1977]

otolith said:

mph1977 said:

the libertarians immaturity / sociopathy

Ooh, pathologising political dissent. Old school.

except this is not an attempt to diagnose and force incarceration / treatment of a condition in those who do not display any symptomology

the lack of empathy and remorse among most libertarians is abundently clear , as are their disinhibited and bold assertions about others - such as the suggestions that significant proprtions of populations are takers as seen by some ofthe US American libertarians

as for immaturity - pick your model of developmental stages ...

[Randy Winkman]

Rovinghawk said:

The role of the private sector is to make as much money as possible; that's why they're in business.

The role of the public sector should be to ensure that tax revenue is spent as wisely as possible to ensure maximum benefit for the taxpayers.

The first is achieving its purpose (regardless of moral views), the second is failing to do its job properly.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 14th May 16:00

Agreed 100%. But those in each sector are the same species, so one should expect the same shortcomings in both cases.

[SpeedMattersNot]

I find it fascinating that people (by people, I mean, lots of people on PH-NP&E) seem to be comfortable with the fact they may be royally screwed by 100% of all private companies. And they're totally fine with it.

So they love taking their Range Rover Sport into my garage and if I chose to 'slag it' for upper and lower rear hub bushes, front lower arms, front and rear arc-bars, bushes and clamps, as well as new wiper blades and a brake pedal rubber - even though they were all perfectly serviceable, they are as said, fine with this because they can always choose to go to another garage afterwards.

(Who is also in the business of royally screwing them)

But of course, if the public sector doesn't deliver 100% satisfaction for each individual, then it's a life changing occurrence.

I love this place

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

Are you going to ask your GP to stop using taxpayers money to prescribe you Glaxo drugs?

It's a family rule that anyone getting prescriptions has to ask for the generic (eg diazepam) rather than brandname (eg valium).

(Mum's a nurse, despises waste in the NHS budget.)

So in answer, yes, as best I can.

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

It's a family rule that anyone getting prescriptions has to ask for the generic (eg diazepam) rather than brandname (eg valium).

(Mum's a nurse, despises waste in the NHS budget.)

So in answer, yes, as best I can.

You pretty much missed the point there. You have little or no control over which private sector firm the Govt. uses to deliver Public Services. And from my experience the level of "Troughing" in any organisation is directly proportional to its size and the distance between the owners(shareholders) and the Employees.

By the way, if your GP needs to be told to prescribe the cheapest possible drugs he needs sacking.

[mph1977]

Countdown said:

Rovinghawk said:

It's a family rule that anyone getting prescriptions has to ask for the generic (eg diazepam) rather than brandname (eg valium).

(Mum's a nurse, despises waste in the NHS budget.)

So in answer, yes, as best I can.

You pretty much missed the point there. You have little or no control over which private sector firm the Govt. uses to deliver Public Services. And from my experience the level of "Troughing" in any organisation is directly proportional to its size and the distance between the owners(shareholders) and the Employees.

By the way, if your GP needs to be told to prescribe the cheapest possible drugs he needs sacking.

I'd agree with the first point , although it has to be balanced with the the 'evil' PFIs which have seen large jumps in the actual service delivered in some cases ( esp hard and soft FM ) becasue of the enforcability of the contract

GPs have little choice in what they prescribe especially in the surgery as the IT system tends to default to the generic unless it's either a brand name only drug or one where there are bioavailability differences between brands ( some of the epilepsy drugs and Lithium salts used in psych) , hospital docs get their legs slapped by the pharmacists
if they prescribe non generically without justification .

[StevoCally]

Privatisation of Child Protection services possibly incoming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27452457

The only positive I can see from this is providing an actual benchmark of whether local authorities do a better job with this service given some of the previous posts on here constantly critising the work public sector social workers do.

It'll be interesting to see how these private companies integrate and work in unison with other bodies that Child Protection work demands.

[randlemarcus]

StevoCally said:

Privatisation of Child Protection services possibly incoming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27452457

The only positive I can see from this is providing an actual benchmark of whether local authorities do a better job with this service given some of the previous posts on here constantly critising the work public sector social workers do.

It'll be interesting to see how these private companies integrate and work in unison with other bodies that Child Protection work demands.

If we benchmark with the PH thread about a Child Welfare visit, where the public sector Child Services couldn't be arsed to get out of the office, and handed it to the police, I think we'll have a reasonable picture.

[FiF]

randlemarcus said:

StevoCally said:

Privatisation of Child Protection services possibly incoming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27452457

The only positive I can see from this is providing an actual benchmark of whether local authorities do a better job with this service given some of the previous posts on here constantly critising the work public sector social workers do.

It'll be interesting to see how these private companies integrate and work in unison with other bodies that Child Protection work demands.

If we benchmark with the PH thread about a Child Welfare visit, where the public sector Child Services couldn't be arsed to get out of the office, and handed it to the police, I think we'll have a reasonable picture.

Well I can't link to the story now as the site has been taken down but will refer to the Inspector Gadget account of when they had a mentally ill guy in custody for his own safety and they didn't want to take police action but needed input from mental health and social services people.

By chance they had two of the very people they needed sitting in a room ostensibly in connection with another case but actually doing nothing.

These two were asked to help and provide advice. They refused.