The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
You may read on this thread that public sector organisations are corrupt and a waste of taxpayers money.

And that they should be flogged off to the criminal bankers and the spivs in the city.

The result when you do:

"The government is to cancel all contracts with Learndirect, the adult training provider that tried to suppress a damning regulator’s report into its poor standards.

The Department for Education said on Tuesday that it would withdraw all funding from the organisation, which is responsible for almost 73,000 trainees, by July 2018 and that it had already banned it from taking on new apprentices.

Learndirect, which was privatised by David Cameron’s coalition government in 2011 and is majority-owned by the private equity arm of Lloyds Bank, has said it could collapse into administration if the DfE withdrew its funding, which was worth £158m in the year to July 2017."

"the company has received £631m of public money since its controversial privatisation. An FT/FE Week investigation this week found that in the four years since it was sold off, it parent company spent 84% of its income, most of which came from the taxpayer, on payments to managers and financiers."

"it was “truly shocking” that Learndirect’s owners, which ultimately include Lloyds Bank, appear to have “raked in vast amounts of public money, extracted tens of millions of pounds from Learndirect, loaded the company with debt, overseen a catastrophic decline in standards, and tried to stop the truth coming out”."

"The UK’s largest provider of adult training and apprenticeships has been branded inadequate in a damning inspection by the education watchdog Ofsted, which it then went to court to try to suppress.

Learndirect, which has almost 73,000 trainees on its apprenticeships and training programmes, went to the high court to try to quash the report in which it is said to have been awarded the lowest possible grades.

However, its application for a judicial review to overturn the report was refused in a judgment on Friday and Ofsted confirmed the as-yet unpublished report would be released on Thursday."
 
nick mercedes said:
You may read on this thread that public sector organisations are corrupt and a waste of taxpayers money.

And that they should be flogged off to the criminal bankers and the spivs in the city.....
Click to expand...

This thread is several hundred pages long.... would you kindly point to the post # where the above was said?
 
Shadow Labour minister has resigned for saying that white young girls are being raped by Pakistani Muslim men. Seems like the truth is no defence in todays world. Lots of concern in the media (rightly) regarding the far right, seems the far left can do as they please. RIP freedom of speech.
 
nick mercedes said:
You may read on this thread that public sector organisations are corrupt and a waste of taxpayers money.

And that they should be flogged off to the criminal bankers and the spivs in the city.

The result when you do:

"The government is to cancel all contracts with Learndirect, the adult training provider that tried to suppress a damning regulator’s report into its poor standards.

The Department for Education said on Tuesday that it would withdraw all funding from the organisation, which is responsible for almost 73,000 trainees, by July 2018 and that it had already banned it from taking on new apprentices.

Learndirect, which was privatised by David Cameron’s coalition government in 2011 and is majority-owned by the private equity arm of Lloyds Bank, has said it could collapse into administration if the DfE withdrew its funding, which was worth £158m in the year to July 2017."

"the company has received £631m of public money since its controversial privatisation. An FT/FE Week investigation this week found that in the four years since it was sold off, it parent company spent 84% of its income, most of which came from the taxpayer, on payments to managers and financiers."

"it was “truly shocking” that Learndirect’s owners, which ultimately include Lloyds Bank, appear to have “raked in vast amounts of public money, extracted tens of millions of pounds from Learndirect, loaded the company with debt, overseen a catastrophic decline in standards, and tried to stop the truth coming out”."

"The UK’s largest provider of adult training and apprenticeships has been branded inadequate in a damning inspection by the education watchdog Ofsted, which it then went to court to try to suppress.

Learndirect, which has almost 73,000 trainees on its apprenticeships and training programmes, went to the high court to try to quash the report in which it is said to have been awarded the lowest possible grades.

However, its application for a judicial review to overturn the report was refused in a judgment on Friday and Ofsted confirmed the as-yet unpublished report would be released on Thursday."
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the Government is forging ahead with plans to privatise NHS Professionals, the publically-owned staffing agency that saves the health service £70m each year by cutting out the greedy middlemen.

No wonder the likes of Staffline are queuing up with bids of £50m - they'll make that in a year or two by over-charging the NHS:

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is selling off NHS firm which saves taxpayer £70m a year | The Independent

https://www.theguardian.com/society...iry-into-privatisation-of-nhs-owned-recruiter
 
Scott_F said:
Meanwhile, the Government is forging ahead with plans to privatise NHS Professionals, the publically-owned staffing agency that saves the health service £70m each year by cutting out the greedy middlemen.
Click to expand...

I think I would want to know a bit more about the DH and the underlying costs and issues before going down the media / political emotive route.

I think the main question for the public is the issue of agency staff and the amounts of money that appear to be lost.

My suspicion is that if a business to deal with NHS labour fulfilment is worth £XX million then one has to first ask about the ecosystem that supports that valuation rather than whether it should be a privatised.

My view of government public sector and large private enterprise spending is that the fundamental flaw is the acceptance of big £XX numbers as being entirely normal rather than questioning 'How Much? !!' every so often. Big accepted numbers in one part of an operation nurtures big numbers and sloppiness quite in other parts.

(I would add that it may be that the valuation is actually economically sound and efficient - but my experience of HMG and the surrounding ecosystem would tend to make me assume that it isn't until somebody could explain to me why it actually is).
 
Dryce said:
I think I would want to know a bit more about the DH and the underlying costs and issues before going down the media / political emotive route.

I think the main question for the public is the issue of agency staff and the amounts of money that appear to be lost.

My suspicion is that if a business to deal with NHS labour fulfilment is worth £XX million then one has to first ask about the ecosystem that supports that valuation rather than whether it should be a privatised.

My view of government public sector and large private enterprise spending is that the fundamental flaw is the acceptance of big £XX numbers as being entirely normal rather than questioning 'How Much? !!' every so often. Big accepted numbers in one part of an operation nurtures big numbers and sloppiness quite in other parts.

(I would add that it may be that the valuation is actually economically sound and efficient - but my experience of HMG and the surrounding ecosystem would tend to make me assume that it isn't until somebody could explain to me why it actually is).
Click to expand...

Whilst I appreciate that the NHS is a large and complex organisation and that there is always a bigger picture, I don't really see the relevance of your comments about "big numbers" and "ecosystems". They seem like froth.

Regardless of numbers and ecosystems, the recurring argument for any privatisation is that it will save money, provide a better service and be a better deal for the taxpayer. We know that the NHS wastes vast sums each year not on agency staff but agency commission, we know that NHS Professionals does the job far cheaper and we know that when a private agency buys the business costs will rise.

So it's not about ecosystems and it's not about saving money. It's about short-sighted Government ideology and their endless commitment to privatisation even when the numbers don't stack up.
 
Dryce said:
I think I would want to know a bit more about the DH and the underlying costs and issues before going down the media / political emotive route.

I think the main question for the public is the issue of agency staff and the amounts of money that appear to be lost.

My suspicion is that if a business to deal with NHS labour fulfilment is worth £XX million then one has to first ask about the ecosystem that supports that valuation rather than whether it should be a privatised.

My view of government public sector and large private enterprise spending is that the fundamental flaw is the acceptance of big £XX numbers as being entirely normal rather than questioning 'How Much? !!' every so often. Big accepted numbers in one part of an operation nurtures big numbers and sloppiness quite in other parts.

(I would add that it may be that the valuation is actually economically sound and efficient - but my experience of HMG and the surrounding ecosystem would tend to make me assume that it isn't until somebody could explain to me why it actually is).
Click to expand...

In answer to your desire for more information that's not going to be forthcoming as this privatisation is due to go through while parliament is not in session. :doh: In addition one of the main parties said to be interested in buying NHSP is "Staffline" one of several private staffing agencies currently making huge amounts of money from the NHS. :eek: In a way it becomes a self fullfilling prophesy - if you sell off any publicly owned body that is profitable to the private sector then yes the political "orthodoxy" that the public sector can never be good value for money and only organisations in the private sector can function efficiently is constantly re-inforced. As I have remarked before increasingly UK politics can be characterised as a belief system rather than a decision making process based on reality.
 
Scott_F said:
Whilst I appreciate that the NHS is a large and complex organisation and that there is always a bigger picture, I don't really see the relevance of your comments about "big numbers" and "ecosystems". They seem like froth.
Click to expand...
I don't think the comments are irrelevant at all. I think the question to be asked is why does the ecosystem exist in the first place?

So, instead of focussing upon whether the ecosystem should be in public or private hands, we should be addressing the drivers that make it viable. For example, I personally know nurses who have left the NHS to escape low pay who are then reemployed by the NHS for the same or lesser duties on a higher salary via an agency who are also taking a cut of the fees paid by - you guessed it - the NHS. That this has become accepted practice is just one example of the dysfunctional nature of the ecosystem that Dryce alludes to.

Whenever I see big £xx numbers being bandied about in respect of the NHS or any other "big ticket" expense with a political master it brings to mind the quotation attributed to Senator Dirksen (whether or not he actually did say it), "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
 
st13phil said:
I don't think the comments are irrelevant at all. I think the question to be asked is why does the ecosystem exist in the first place?

So, instead of focussing upon whether the ecosystem should be in public or private hands, we should be addressing the drivers that make it viable. For example, I personally know nurses who have left the NHS to escape low pay who are then reemployed by the NHS for the same or lesser duties on a higher salary via an agency who are also taking a cut of the fees paid by - you guessed it - the NHS. That this has become accepted practice is just one example of the dysfunctional nature of the ecosystem that Dryce alludes to.

Whenever I see big £xx numbers being bandied about in respect of the NHS or any other "big ticket" expense with a political master it brings to mind the quotation attributed to Senator Dirksen (whether or not he actually did say it), "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
Click to expand...

As I have said, I can appreciate that the NHS is highly complex and that there is always a bigger picture.

However, if you expand every discussion about the NHS to encompass questions over its funding, expenditure and structure then you'll be talking forever and resolving nothing. You may as well sit there contemplating infinity.

Meanwhile, a valuable and important public asset is about to be privatised on the quiet so that private sector profiteers like Staffline can continue to fleece the NHS and therefore the taxpayer.

Long-winded discussions about anything else can take place later.
 
The issue of outsourcing goes beyond the direct economic aspects.

Employing staff directly by the NHS mean more public sector workers.

This is where the ideology (not economics) kicks-in.

Many of the supporters of this idea come from an angle where they see the State as the ultimate provider of jobs.

This is partially an ideology, and partially tactics - come next elections, a large public sector means more votes to whatever political party that is in favour of keeping a large public sector...

I am all for having a rational discussion how to best serve the NHS and its patients, while providing value for money to the taxpayer - but I suspect two things: (a) any such analysis will show that a combination of some State-run services and some outsourced services will work best, and (b) point 'a' is purely academic, because in the current political climate a logical and practical discussion regarding what solution works best is nigh-on impossible.
 
Last edited:
Railwayman said:
Shadow Labour minister has resigned for saying that white young girls are being raped by Pakistani Muslim men. Seems like the truth is no defence in todays world. Lots of concern in the media (rightly) regarding the far right, seems the far left can do as they please. RIP freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

I would castrate each and every ****ing one of them.

It's the fear of being called racist that allowed all this to continue for so long, and it's probably still happening now.
 
Scott_F said:
Long-winded discussions about anything else can take place later.
Click to expand...

Sort of like making the decision about the stable door some weeks after noticing it was open.

My jaded experience of large private and public sector organisations making decisions is that more than a few are not really sketched out properly - and once the ball gets rolling the outcome is pushed without proper questioning. And polticisation means dogmatism not pragmatism.

Before trusting left/right wing politicians and left/right media picking away at an issue I'd prefer to see it laid out with less politicised interest and make a balanced judgment.

So question 1 for me is - how do they reach that valuation for the entity being privatised - not whether it should be privatised. I'd be looking at why that value is there and whether that represents something that is representative of a weakness or strength in the setup (or the ecosystem).

My habit when I used to work for a larger entity was to attend a management meeting with a notebook and put my idiot hat on and ask questions about the numbers and the measurements or assumptions behind them. Sometimes I was the idiot, but not always, and I can think of a couple of bad decisions on procurement and acquisition that were averted in part because of my sketched numbers.

Public sector is no less averse to avoiding simple questions. My past dealings with NHS and MOD have left me quite cynical about how major decisions on savings are justified. They tend to listen even less - and as a supplier or consultant asking pragmatic questions that would possibly cause a change in direction is actually likely to leave you sidelined completely.
 
Dryce said:
Sort of like making the decision about the stable door some weeks after noticing it was open.
Click to expand...

I really don't see how. Discussions and debates about the larger NHS picture have been going on for as long as there has been an NHS and they always will for as long as we still have an NHS. Meanwhile, this privatisation (the latest part of creeping Tory privatisation of the NHS) is imminent.


Dryce said:
So question 1 for me is - how do they reach that valuation for the entity being privatised - not whether it should be privatised. I'd be looking at why that value is there and whether that represents something that is representative of a weakness or strength in the setup (or the ecosystem).
Click to expand...

The question for me is - how complicated do you want to make something that really isn't ?

Media sources (including the FT - not known for its anti-Tory bias) report that Staffline have bid £50m for 75% of a business that saves the NHS £70m per year. Currently, agency staff from NHS Professionals cost 15% - 30% less than those from private agencies and once Staffline are controlling the reigns the impact on costs is a foregone conclusion. And by the time you've finished pondering theoretical valuations of your "ecosystem" it will be too late and the question of whether it should be privatised will have been answered by Government action.


Dryce said:
Public sector is no less averse to avoiding simple questions. My past dealings with NHS and MOD have left me quite cynical about how major decisions on savings are justified. They tend to listen even less - and as a supplier or consultant asking pragmatic questions that would possibly cause a change in direction is actually likely to leave you sidelined completely.
Click to expand...

Again I don't see your point in this context. This decision is not being justified by any fanciful notion of cost saving. Since cost saving could only be achieved by keeping the business in public hands, this decision is one based on an ideological commitment to privatise as much of the NHS as possible. In financial terms, the decision has no basis whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Similar threads

BlackC55
Benz On The Green 2020 REGISTRATION OPEN!
7 8 9
Replies
172
Views
18K
AMGeed
AMGeed
KillerHERTZ
  • Sticky
The Football Thread
77 78 79
Replies
2K
Views
123K
ioweddie
ioweddie
BlackC55
Benz On The Green 2019 **11th of May**
25 26 27
Replies
531
Views
35K
BlackC55
BlackC55
KillerHERTZ
  • Locked
  • Poll
EU Referendum
62 63 64
Replies
1K
Views
61K
KillerHERTZ
KillerHERTZ
simon1966
[SOLD] E55K ESTATE 54 REG - ONE OF THE BEST!
Replies
11
Views
9K
simon1966
simon1966
Back
Top Bottom