The government is scaling back plans to use the private sector to deliver public services, the BBC has learned.

Leaked documents suggest ministers have decided the "wholesale outsourcing" of public services to the private sector would be politically "unpalatable".

Ministers instead want to use more charities, social enterprises and employee-owned "mutual" organisations.

Outsourcing was meant to be a key part of the government's drive to cut costs and reduce the UK's budget deficit.

The shift in policy will raise questions about whether the government can make the savings it has promised - or deliver the services it is committed to - just by using charities and mutuals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13273932

'Politically "unpalatable"'? How about downright moronic in almost every way?

There will be serious problems for charities who provide services. Their position as support for disabled or elderly might become compromised as they will have a significant conflict of interest. Then once they have a serious and significant failure they could find being sued out of existance as a result of incompetance. It is a very dangerous game for charities as they will lose their advocacy role in chasing government contracts.

I'm no left wing nutter, but I think outsourcing public services is bad.
On paper things cost less (only because of poor management in the public sector) but the reality is things always cost more as contract are never flexible enough to meet demand.
eg Hospital cleaning. Cleaners would often refuse to clean things not in the contract or their employers would charge a huge one off fee.

I suspect that the government have rigged the "inefficiencies" of the public sector like they have with the previous outsourcing. The only way they can reduce costs is invariably cut wages or benefits. Many private sector organisations are really poorly run. So the so called differences might only be in the imaginations of politicians.

Out sourcing works for small business who can't get the economies of scale for some jobs/tasks.
The public sector (ie government) is the largest organisation out there, if they can't get economies of scale, who can?
To me outsourcing just means some of the money is being skimmed off for company profits. As you said that means either:
lower wages
higher costs
or reduced service.

Also it allows a government to invent some unworkable new system and have it implemented well away from any immediate oversight. The oversight eventually occurs but not before the new thingamibob has (hopefully) won you a chunk of votes/favour/headlines. Once they find out it doesn't work the government disposes of it quietly and hopefully without comment.



I just agreed with you, Lev.

Technically true, but perhaps there's such a thing as "too large". Smaller scale operations have lower management overheads, and the economies of scale do not scale infinitely.

Most importantly, smaller companies have fewer places for leeches to hide. The incompetence and idleness famed of the public sector are less likely to be tolerated.

(looks at calendar) No, actually, I'm mistaken, it isn't 1978 again all of a sudden.
Do you really think governments haven't been doing anything about that for the last 20 years? Do you really think there are tons of 'public servants' out there, sat with their feet up pulling in big wages? As oppose to the mass of public servants who are now actually in the employ of the likes of Capita and most of whome are on little more than minimum wage, while the likes of Capita massively overcharge the public sector for their services.

The people who have soaked massive amounts of public money for doing feck all for about the last decade aren't the likes of cleaners and office staff and nurses, they're the middle managers and consultants who have been brought in by self-serving politicians to 'clean the public service up and get rid of all the waste'. In the last decade, even though they've been there (and in fact I'd posit because they've been there) the cost of the public sector and the people employed by it have mushroomed, yet we have less people doing actual real jobs. Turning the public sector into the private sector hasn't imported all the good bits of the private sector in the public sector, it's just added all the faults of the private sector onto the ones that are already there. It's been an unmitigated disaster.

I believe the private sector is good at being the private sector. Well, some of the time anyway. Some of the time it's utterly rotten (ref: banks). I believe the public sector can be good at being the public sector. Well, some of the time anyway. Some of the time, it's utterly rotten. But trying to turn one into the other isn't some panacrea that will miraculously breed a butterfly from a pair of caterpillars. Because the private sector caterpillar has a nasty habit of eating the public sector one, so all you end up with is a bigger caterpillar.

What we need is some people in charge of of the public sector who have some idea how they work, some idea of what they're there for, some idea of where they want them to do and some idea of what their best and worst features are, and then let them get on with it. That is not just bringing in someone with an MBA and expecting miracles, because it just doesn't work.

Jon

Yes but you can solve that problem by making parts of the public sector smaller so that they can be overseen far more easily. It makes it much harder to hide. Though the problem becomes that there are already too many layers of bureacracy in the public sector. Strip out many layers of middle managers and the system could be far more efficient.

I totally agree. And you'll notice at no time did I suggest that the private sector was better; I simply suggested that "Big" isn't "Better".

That's twice in one day. Are you ill?

It's either that or a warning of the Apocalypse