A long-awaited volte face?

[Cugel]

Are the politicians at the sharp end (local councillors) coming to their senses at last or is it just the sharp end of reality getting so sharp that they have to take notice of it?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... d-councils

For myself, I would dearly like to see many infrastructure services and amenities removed from the money-grubbing private sector of capitalist hyenas (it really does seem an appropriate description of the rascals, eh) and given back to those with a public service ethic rather than a profit motive of the kind avid for "money at any cost".

In my younger days, some centuries ago now (or so it feels like) I worked in the civil service as it was slowly dismantled and turned into a horde of "businesses" awarded to some very nasty little money-avid organisations. It was a sad, sad time - to see a Victorian laissez-faire economic ideology decimating what was once a very effective and well-developed set of infrastructure, with many enabling mechanisms for making citizenship in the UK a pleasure and an opportunity for many, many in all kinds of ways.

Will this trend be taken up by National government? Some Labour noises suggest they might although the Tories seem even more neoliberal in outlook and intent than ever, despite having to admit the various debacles with rail, probation, prisons .........

Wot U fink?

Cugel

[mercalia]

with money so short in the public purse, funding capitalist for profit orgs is mad? we need to work out how to make org work well without a profit motive, its obvious really any money given to profits is money not spend on the people of the community?

[Lance Dopestrong]

I must say, if that's the trend I welcome it. Aside from the saving made by not having to pay profit to shareholders, the councils have direct control over quality and efficiency. Best of all, they're not tied to a contract for X years, so if it suddenly becomes necessary for dustmen to repaint park benches then the staff can be re deployed to do it without having to either wait until a contract ends or expensively renegotiating mid term.

[reohn2]

I must say, if that's the trend I welcome it. Aside from the saving made by not having to pay profit to shareholders, the councils have direct control over quality and efficiency. Best of all, they're not tied to a contract for X years, so if it suddenly becomes necessary for dustmen to repaint park benches then the staff can be re deployed to do it without having to either wait until a contract ends or expensively renegotiating mid term.

Agreed!
And the same goes for the utilities and railways too.
I'm of the opinion that if a private company can make a profit there's no reason the same services can be run,if run properly,cheaper and better..

[Cugel]

I must say, if that's the trend I welcome it. Aside from the saving made by not having to pay profit to shareholders, the councils have direct control over quality and efficiency. Best of all, they're not tied to a contract for X years, so if it suddenly becomes necessary for dustmen to repaint park benches then the staff can be re deployed to do it without having to either wait until a contract ends or expensively renegotiating mid term.

Agreed!
And the same goes for the utilities and railways too.
I'm of the opinion that if a private company can make a profit there's no reason the same services can be run,if run properly,cheaper and better..

To be blunt, I'm much less bothered about the financial costs or savings of running an infrastructure service or amenity than I am about the surrounding costs and benefits of other kinds. An inexpensive service is very nice - if it meets a certain quality. An inexpensive service that's poor or only inexpensive in the short term is not only bad value for money but a contributor to the sort of degradation we've seen in many aspects of British life since Thatcher & Co began the process of privatisation.

As the article mentions, services that arew provided by organisations and workers who operate with a public service ethic tend to concentrate on quality rather than cheapness. Although cutting out shareholders, fatcat CEOs and all the other parasites will mean a council run service can be cheaper, I'd rather it was fit for purpose and fit to work for, above all else. Road fixing that doesn't degrade in a few weeks to often worse than it was before the "fix", done by the untrained paid tint wages on a zero-hours "contract. Social housing that isn't a death trap or a breeding ground for all the ills associated with damp, noise, pollution, lack of amenities and all the rest because some accountant found a way to save money by doing the minimum whilst paying the fatcats the maximum. And so forth.

We used to have these good things. Old folks homes that were well run and a good place to go at the end of life. Bus and other public transport services that were ubiquitous, frequent and inexpensive. Housing that induced a pride in tenancy almost equal to a pride in ownership. Lots of good parks, sports grounds, proper schools and so much else.

Many will moan "Can't afford it". Reform taxes then. I for one will pay more - a lot more - if the infrastructure and the society it supports is improved as it could be.

Cugel

[Lance Dopestrong]

I personally would resent paying a single penny more when large corporations are being allowed to negotiate their yearly tax bill with the revenue. When they stop letting the tail wag the dog at the top end of the financial food chain, then I won't mind them chiselling some extra shekels out of me. Until that time...

[pwa]

One reason that private sector providers can provide services cheaper than public sector is that they can treat their employees worse. That is the real cost of making "savings" and society knows that but prefers not to focus on it. If we want low earners treated decently we have to pay for that, but if we only care about getting services at the lowest possible price we don't.

[reohn2]

Cugel
Apologies my post should've read

I don't see why services shouldn't be as good and where possible better than the private sector