Protests as Barnet privatisation agenda moves forward
Thursday, 04 December 2008 13:04
Earlier this week we asked what was going on in Barnet, where the Tory council has started a process under the auspices of its ‘Future Shape of the Council’ document that includes plans for wholesale privatisation of council services.Last night BBC London reported live from the meeting where the ruling Tory Cabinet considered the plans and protestors including residents, Barnet trade unions and Labour councillors rallied outside. The Tories took another step towards privatisation by welcoming the report and deciding to commit more council resources and time to the ‘Future Shape’ agenda.
Council leader Mike Freer defended the plans on BBC London but his arguments seemed merely to boil down to ‘we simply can’t stand still’. Except that this concept of not standing still actually involves going backwards – to failed Thatcherite privatisation policies of the 1980s. Freer is one of David Cameron’s candidates for the next general election. A useful question would be whether Cameron defends Barnet’s retro agenda.
And where is the Mayor of London as a council opens up a red-in-tooth-and-claw Thatcher-style assault on public services?
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (11)
...
I don't think outsourcing council services is wrong per se.
Let's face it, refuse collection, road and park maintenance are fairly basic services that private companies should be perfectly able to deliver. And if they can be delivered more efficiently through an outsource contract with the right level of quality, that's great.
But what we really must then see is those efficiencies being re-invested in local services that add value to our lives; like art, culture, libraries, recreation, creating opportunities for young people, etc. This is especially important as the financial crisis begins to impact our lives and reduce the amount of disposable income we have.
Let's face it, refuse collection, road and park maintenance are fairly basic services that private companies should be perfectly able to deliver. And if they can be delivered more efficiently through an outsource contract with the right level of quality, that's great.
But what we really must then see is those efficiencies being re-invested in local services that add value to our lives; like art, culture, libraries, recreation, creating opportunities for young people, etc. This is especially important as the financial crisis begins to impact our lives and reduce the amount of disposable income we have.
,
December 06, 2008
...
Four arguments against privatising public service:
1. Often the "efficiency" is obtained by using casual labour and not giving people decent wages or job security. A less pretty word for that would be "exploitation".
2. Sometimes the bidding price is low, but after the contract has been awarded the cost rises unaccountably -- seen it happen.
3. Sometimes the service providers have an ideological axe to grind and the users are forced to put ups with a private agenda being foisted on them with public funds.
4. Any outsourcing to anyone results in a loss of democratic control. It's much easier to hold an elected Council accountable than a commercial or ideological organisation.
1. Often the "efficiency" is obtained by using casual labour and not giving people decent wages or job security. A less pretty word for that would be "exploitation".
2. Sometimes the bidding price is low, but after the contract has been awarded the cost rises unaccountably -- seen it happen.
3. Sometimes the service providers have an ideological axe to grind and the users are forced to put ups with a private agenda being foisted on them with public funds.
4. Any outsourcing to anyone results in a loss of democratic control. It's much easier to hold an elected Council accountable than a commercial or ideological organisation.
,
December 06, 2008
...
It is short sighted and mean to privatise and any profits will eventually have to go to look after a poorer population who loose out from better pay, conditions and pension.If it works, don't change it simply for the sake of change or in the false belief that Thatcherism is the panacea for the good life. Indeed, it has been the cause of a change in our society which is to one of greed, carbon emmissions and muddled economic poicies we are currently seeing the effect of.The country is in grave danger from these theoretical notions and as I said few benefit and a lot loose out.
,
December 07, 2008
...
Private companies are not charities. They are businesses there to make money - as much as possible.
Councils exist to provide services, direction and shape to the community. Money should be scrutinised and services should be efficient– but, not to the detriment of those services.
From the above, how can out-sourcing to a private company be beneficial to residents? As we have seen time and time again services suffer, costs can increase to residents - and then govt/ councils have to intervene. Managing these out-sourced contracts can both cumbersome and problematic - meaning that ad hoc changes/adjustments to services, which may be urgently required, are delayed or even vetoed due to the loss of control of the authority.
Why privatise at all? Set up effective controls.
Surely, Local Govt should be the experts in running Local Govt services?
Councils exist to provide services, direction and shape to the community. Money should be scrutinised and services should be efficient– but, not to the detriment of those services.
From the above, how can out-sourcing to a private company be beneficial to residents? As we have seen time and time again services suffer, costs can increase to residents - and then govt/ councils have to intervene. Managing these out-sourced contracts can both cumbersome and problematic - meaning that ad hoc changes/adjustments to services, which may be urgently required, are delayed or even vetoed due to the loss of control of the authority.
Why privatise at all? Set up effective controls.
Surely, Local Govt should be the experts in running Local Govt services?
,
December 08, 2008
...
Hi Muriel Fraser.
I think much of those concerns can be addressed by some intelligence in the contracting process -- which so often seems missing from local and central government contracts!
It seems to me that the battle we should be fighting shouldn't be against outsourcing -- I think there is a clear need to cut costs in the current financial situation -- but, rather, in ensuring the best outcomes from outsourcing.
Rather than campaign against it because "it's bad", perhaps a better focus would be on ensuring contracts include clauses around the fair and equable treatment of employees by service providers, and service credits and benchmarking clauses to prevent price creep, etc. But importantly, let's see efficiencies made in one area directly linked to reinvestment in other areas.
As someone who has been outsourced (and survived!) I think there is a more nuanced position to be found here, not harken back to pre-Thatcher arguments. That would be the progressive thing to do in my view.
I think much of those concerns can be addressed by some intelligence in the contracting process -- which so often seems missing from local and central government contracts!
It seems to me that the battle we should be fighting shouldn't be against outsourcing -- I think there is a clear need to cut costs in the current financial situation -- but, rather, in ensuring the best outcomes from outsourcing.
Rather than campaign against it because "it's bad", perhaps a better focus would be on ensuring contracts include clauses around the fair and equable treatment of employees by service providers, and service credits and benchmarking clauses to prevent price creep, etc. But importantly, let's see efficiencies made in one area directly linked to reinvestment in other areas.
As someone who has been outsourced (and survived!) I think there is a more nuanced position to be found here, not harken back to pre-Thatcher arguments. That would be the progressive thing to do in my view.
,
December 08, 2008
...
Of course businesses are there to make a profit. I'm not naive in thinking that agenda isn't behind service providers bidding for these contracts.
But if services can be delivered with greater efficiency and they can be improved upon (it is possible despite the headline-grabbing stories of when things go wrong!) surely that's a good thing.
And if the savings that are realised can be reinvested for the greater good of the local community, that seems like a brilliant outcome to me!
Instead of looking at this issue and seeing only the private-sector bogeyman, who must be resisted at all costs, how about seeing the opportunity and working to shape the outsourcing agenda?
Could one develop a set of criteria against which local government outsourcing contracts are tested? Criteria that not only measure the financial and quality aspects, but the wider community good and social responsibility?
What about writing contracts that not only measure the basic outcomes of the contract (e.g. the quality of the services delivered) but how, overall, the outsourcing agenda improves local communities (e.g. perhaps savings made in refuse collection must be directly linked to improving recycling in the neighbourhood or reducing the local carbon footprint? Or savings made in park maintenance are linked to increased investment in providing afterschool clubs or tackling knife crime?)
My feeling is that there is a reality that local government must do more with less. Very few of us welcome tax increases to fund services, or a reduction in services because of tight budgets -- so perhaps there is a middle way where the private sector plays its part (yes, turning a profit) but also contributing something back to the societies in which they operate.
With regard the point that local government should be the experts in running local government services. I agree to a point, but does the local government need to be an expert in park maintenance? Horticulture? Tree surgeons? Litter removal? Or can these be delivered by the appropriate specialists under a local government governance framework?
But if services can be delivered with greater efficiency and they can be improved upon (it is possible despite the headline-grabbing stories of when things go wrong!) surely that's a good thing.
And if the savings that are realised can be reinvested for the greater good of the local community, that seems like a brilliant outcome to me!
Instead of looking at this issue and seeing only the private-sector bogeyman, who must be resisted at all costs, how about seeing the opportunity and working to shape the outsourcing agenda?
Could one develop a set of criteria against which local government outsourcing contracts are tested? Criteria that not only measure the financial and quality aspects, but the wider community good and social responsibility?
What about writing contracts that not only measure the basic outcomes of the contract (e.g. the quality of the services delivered) but how, overall, the outsourcing agenda improves local communities (e.g. perhaps savings made in refuse collection must be directly linked to improving recycling in the neighbourhood or reducing the local carbon footprint? Or savings made in park maintenance are linked to increased investment in providing afterschool clubs or tackling knife crime?)
My feeling is that there is a reality that local government must do more with less. Very few of us welcome tax increases to fund services, or a reduction in services because of tight budgets -- so perhaps there is a middle way where the private sector plays its part (yes, turning a profit) but also contributing something back to the societies in which they operate.
With regard the point that local government should be the experts in running local government services. I agree to a point, but does the local government need to be an expert in park maintenance? Horticulture? Tree surgeons? Litter removal? Or can these be delivered by the appropriate specialists under a local government governance framework?
,
December 08, 2008
...
Many Labour controlled Councils have privatised and externalised services. Driving down wages, reducing terms and conditions and weakening trade union organisation. Even when Labour gained national office in 1997 the pace of privatisation increased. The Barnet Tories have simply ptaken a leaf out the labour externalisers book!
,
December 08, 2008
...
Four arguments against privatising public service:
1. Often the "efficiency" is obtained by using casual labour and not giving people decent wages or job security. A less pretty word for that would be "exploitation".
2. Sometimes the bidding price is low, but after the contract has been awarded the cost rises unaccountably -- seen it happen.
3. Sometimes the service providers have an ideological axe to grind and the users are forced to put ups with a private agenda being foisted on them with public funds.
4. Any outsourcing to anyone results in a loss of democratic control. It's much easier to hold an elected Council accountable than a commercial or ideological organisation.
1. Often the "efficiency" is obtained by using casual labour and not giving people decent wages or job security. A less pretty word for that would be "exploitation".
2. Sometimes the bidding price is low, but after the contract has been awarded the cost rises unaccountably -- seen it happen.
3. Sometimes the service providers have an ideological axe to grind and the users are forced to put ups with a private agenda being foisted on them with public funds.
4. Any outsourcing to anyone results in a loss of democratic control. It's much easier to hold an elected Council accountable than a commercial or ideological organisation.
,
December 10, 2008
...
It is short sighted and mean to privatise and any profits will eventually have to go to look after a poorer population who loose out from better pay, conditions and pension.If it works, don't change it simply for the sake of change or in the false belief that Thatcherism is the panacea for the good life. Indeed, it has been the cause of a change in our society which is to one of greed, carbon emmissions and muddled economic poicies we are currently seeing the effect of.The country is in grave danger from these theoretical notions and as I said few benefit and a lot loose out.
,
December 10, 2008
...
Hi Muriel Fraser.
I think much of those concerns can be addressed by some intelligence in the contracting process -- which so often seems missing from local and central government contracts!
It seems to me that the battle we should be fighting shouldn\'t be against outsourcing -- I think there is a clear need to cut costs in the current financial situation -- but, rather, in ensuring the best outcomes from outsourcing.
Rather than campaign against it because \"it\'s bad\", perhaps a better focus would be on ensuring contracts include clauses around the fair and equable treatment of employees by service providers, and service credits and benchmarking clauses to prevent price creep, etc. But importantly, let\'s see efficiencies made in one area directly linked to reinvestment in other areas.
As someone who has been outsourced (and survived!) I think there is a more nuanced position to be found here, not harken back to pre-Thatcher arguments. That would be the progressive thing to do in my view.
I think much of those concerns can be addressed by some intelligence in the contracting process -- which so often seems missing from local and central government contracts!
It seems to me that the battle we should be fighting shouldn\'t be against outsourcing -- I think there is a clear need to cut costs in the current financial situation -- but, rather, in ensuring the best outcomes from outsourcing.
Rather than campaign against it because \"it\'s bad\", perhaps a better focus would be on ensuring contracts include clauses around the fair and equable treatment of employees by service providers, and service credits and benchmarking clauses to prevent price creep, etc. But importantly, let\'s see efficiencies made in one area directly linked to reinvestment in other areas.
As someone who has been outsourced (and survived!) I think there is a more nuanced position to be found here, not harken back to pre-Thatcher arguments. That would be the progressive thing to do in my view.
,
December 10, 2008
...
Of course businesses are there to make a profit. I'm not naive in thinking that agenda isn't behind service providers bidding for these contracts.
But if services can be delivered with greater efficiency and they can be improved upon (it is possible despite the headline-grabbing stories of when things go wrong!) surely that's a good thing.
And if the savings that are realised can be reinvested for the greater good of the local community, that seems like a brilliant outcome to me!
Instead of looking at this issue and seeing only the private-sector bogeyman, who must be resisted at all costs, how about seeing the opportunity and working to shape the outsourcing agenda?
Could one develop a set of criteria against which local government outsourcing contracts are tested? Criteria that not only measure the financial and quality aspects, but the wider community good and social responsibility?
What about writing contracts that not only measure the basic outcomes of the contract (e.g. the quality of the services delivered) but how, overall, the outsourcing agenda improves local communities (e.g. perhaps savings made in refuse collection must be directly linked to improving recycling in the neighbourhood or reducing the local carbon footprint? Or savings made in park maintenance are linked to increased investment in providing afterschool clubs or tackling knife crime?)
My feeling is that there is a reality that local government must do more with less. Very few of us welcome tax increases to fund services, or a reduction in services because of tight budgets -- so perhaps there is a middle way where the private sector plays its part (yes, turning a profit) but also contributing something back to the societies in which they operate.
With regard the point that local government should be the experts in running local government services. I agree to a point, but does the local government need to be an expert in park maintenance? Horticulture? Tree surgeons? Litter removal? Or can these be delivered by the appropriate specialists under a local government governance framework?
But if services can be delivered with greater efficiency and they can be improved upon (it is possible despite the headline-grabbing stories of when things go wrong!) surely that's a good thing.
And if the savings that are realised can be reinvested for the greater good of the local community, that seems like a brilliant outcome to me!
Instead of looking at this issue and seeing only the private-sector bogeyman, who must be resisted at all costs, how about seeing the opportunity and working to shape the outsourcing agenda?
Could one develop a set of criteria against which local government outsourcing contracts are tested? Criteria that not only measure the financial and quality aspects, but the wider community good and social responsibility?
What about writing contracts that not only measure the basic outcomes of the contract (e.g. the quality of the services delivered) but how, overall, the outsourcing agenda improves local communities (e.g. perhaps savings made in refuse collection must be directly linked to improving recycling in the neighbourhood or reducing the local carbon footprint? Or savings made in park maintenance are linked to increased investment in providing afterschool clubs or tackling knife crime?)
My feeling is that there is a reality that local government must do more with less. Very few of us welcome tax increases to fund services, or a reduction in services because of tight budgets -- so perhaps there is a middle way where the private sector plays its part (yes, turning a profit) but also contributing something back to the societies in which they operate.
With regard the point that local government should be the experts in running local government services. I agree to a point, but does the local government need to be an expert in park maintenance? Horticulture? Tree surgeons? Litter removal? Or can these be delivered by the appropriate specialists under a local government governance framework?
,
December 10, 2008
Write comment
