Public Sector Bashing

[Stars]

The money comes out of all of our pockets, either way. If FirstGreatwestern **** up, they either increase the fares or demand a bung from the public purse.

If a local council does it, they're stuffed because the amount they can charge in council tax is capped.

It doesn't come out of our pockets if we are not forced to pay for it!

You have to fudge here, basically you are cornered

[GBdamo]

But we've already been here

I've asked you for data to support your claim that removing half the workforce would make no visible change to the service. I think we got as far as a court being involved, but no data was produced

Enough numbers to keep you happy?

Before Labour came into power the annual NHS spend was in the order of £40b now its over £100b.

NHS twice as good?

Before Labour came to power total public spending was £340b now it's getting on for £550b

Public services twice as good?

I have seen no improvements in this time so from that I can only deduce that you can cut the numbers beck (inflation adjusted) to 1996 levels at no visible cost.

Edited August 20, 2009 by GBdamo

[Guest absolutezero]

Ultimately yes, but I'd rather have a new liesure center in town or improved roads, rubbish collectors that are not nazis, free local parking etc...

Why do you think you'd get any of those things under the private sector?

[Faithman]

We are all familiar with the extent of public sector waste because:

Private sector efficiency provides someone with more profit regardless of the size of 'empire' therefore the incentive exists.

Public sector efficiency reduces the workforce and makes somebodies empire smaller therefore no incentive exists.

There is no accountability all the way to the red case carrying top. There should be, but there is not - yet.

Many on here don't think that there will be until the IMF - what a disgraceful state !!

[abharrisson]

Enough numbers to keep you happy?

Before Labour came into power the annual NHS spend was in the order of �40b now its over �100b.

NHS twice as good?

Before Labour came to power total public spending was �340b now it's getting on for �550b

Public services twice as good?

I have seen no improvements in this time so from that I can only deduce that you can cut the numbers beck (inflation adjusted) to 1996 levels at no visible cost.

I share the same view in terms of us overinvesting in things over the period of the labour govt.... some of the changes are desirable as the systems needed some investment but the scale of the wastage whilst delivering that increase has been just crazy...... I think public spending is now actually about £650Bn.. I doubt we could return it to 1996 levels (adjusted) for all sorts of reasons but I do think saving something like 20% through a whole range of measures should be doable without seeing much if any difference to the scale and quality of service most people experience.

[winkie]

I have nothing against the public sector per se, there are many hard and worthwhile workers that do a fine and important jobs. What I do have an issue with is the abhorrent wastage of public money within the system.

I would say that there are many workers that are underpaid for the job they do, and far too many that are well overpaid and are not worth the money they are paid...just my personal feelings, but who am I.

[GBdamo]

Why do you think you'd get any of those things under the private sector?

I don't, what led you to believe I did?

[jonboy]

If public spending is not reigned in, they will take the economy down...might be too late.

I'm sure you are differentiating between public spending and public sector organisations/services?

Why not have a little think along with some of the other balloon-heads about the difference and then decide what you want to 'spend' the diminishing kitty on. Try not to be too opaque though, we need some real content to inform what happens to our cash. Otherwise you're all a bit pointless... oh.

New car or HRT? More jobs or more hip ops? More liquidity or more funded university places? More community regeneration or more lending? More borrowing/spending or more frequent refuse collection? Street lighting or high-street finance? Then some of the harder ones: cataract op or more cancer drugs, extended end-of-life care or euthanasia, operation or prevention services?

Very difficult calls, well some of them and they're not mutually exclusive. But we need to get the whole thing on the table and prioritise based on people's need.

That's not just directed at you harpic but all you guys who think it's as simple as "sack anyone non-clinical earning >£40K cos thay're ALL lazy cling-ons, fact". NEXT?

[GBdamo]

I share the same view in terms of us overinvesting in things over the period of the labour govt.... some of the changes are desirable as the systems needed some investment but the scale of the wastage whilst delivering that increase has been just crazy...... I think public spending is now actually about £650Bn.. I doubt we could return it to 1996 levels (adjusted) for all sorts of reasons but I do think saving something like 20% through a whole range of measures should be doable without seeing much if any difference to the scale and quality of service most people experience.

Probably right, 20% would be less traumatic.

I was defending my stance with AbsoluteZero or Mal Volio, can't remember which. thats all.

[jonboy]

I have nothing against the public sector per se, there are many hard and worthwhile workers that do a fine and important jobs. What I do have an issue with is the abhorrent wastage of public money within the system.

I would say that there are many workers that are underpaid for the job they do, and far too many that are well overpaid and are not worth the money they are paid...just my personal feelings, but who am I.

But of course you're right.

Same of any (most) organisations.

Same for the banks operating with public money.

Same of the companies located here facilitated by development agency or local government lead in money.

Same for universities who give students little following big public investment.

....?

[Guest absolutezero]

I don't, what led you to believe I did?

Ultimately yes, but I'd rather have a new liesure center in town or improved roads, rubbish collectors that are not nazis, free local parking etc...

That response did. The implication from that post is that you'd get this under the private sector but not public.

[GBdamo]

That's not just directed at you harpic but all you guys who think it's as simple as "sack anyone non-clinical earning >£40K cos thay're ALL lazy cling-ons, fact". NEXT?

No but all those 'non clinicals' that are lazy cling ons should go, fact. NEXT?

[Faithman]

20% pay cut acrross the board would be similar level to what we have seen in my indstry.

Public sector workers would take this as a joke though. Shows the mentality.

[roadtoruin]

Enough numbers to keep you happy?

I have seen no improvements in this time so from that I can only deduce that you can cut the numbers beck (inflation adjusted) to 1996 levels at no visible cost.

You can criticise some of the prioritisation that was done to bring waiting lists down but they DID come down - dramatically. Patients routinely died waiting for life-saving surgery in the way they simply do not now.

[jonboy]

Probably right, 20% would be less traumatic.

I was defending my stance with AbsoluteZero or Mal Volio, can't remember which. thats all.

Are we talking about spending on public services or public spending... on anything?

What do you want to cut? What are the efficiencies?

Our local CEO goes through the whole budget line-by-line monthly, cos all necks are on the block for financial break-even.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Same for universities who give students little following big public investment.

....?

driving down the cost of education

link

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has begun the most revolutionary experiment in the history of education, stretching all the way back to the pharaohs. It now gives away its curriculum to anyone smart enough to learn it. It has posted its curriculum on-line for free. These days, this means a staggering 1900 courses. This number will grow.

This is proof to the academic world that MIT regards its program as the best, and dares any other institution to prove otherwise, where everyone can see and compare. The free site validates the MIT T-shirt: HARVARD: Because not everyone can get into MIT."

MIT has publicly stiffed its main rival for the title of the best science university on earth. That rival is the California Institute of Technology. CalTech will forever play catch-up to MIT on-line. It will be "We, Too On-line University."

Students around the world can see for themselves that MIT has what it takes to be the best. They can test drive the entire curriculum.

Top students all over the world still want to attend MIT. They want a diploma that has MIT's name on it. The free site does not reduce demand for an MIT diploma. It increases it.

MIT has up-ended several millennia of higher education. Let me explain.

THE NATURE OF THIS REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIMENT

For as long as there have been priesthoods, there has been formal classroom education.

The Egyptian priests had classrooms, lectures, and students taking notes.

The Jews had schools where bright young men came to learn the Hebrew texts and memorize the oral tradition, which began being written down in the second century A.D. This oral tradition was written down centuries later: the Mishnah and the Talmud.

The Classical Greeks had academies. Plato and Aristotle taught young men the rudiments of philosophy.

The Greeks also had medical schools.

These programs were closed to most outsiders. A student had to be accepted. He also had to pay.

In most cases, the information was secret. The student was bound by an oath of secrecy. Here are the opening words of the original Hippocratic Oath.

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art – if they desire to learn it – without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

The training created a medical guild. The guild functioned as an oligopoly. It kept prices high by restricting access to the training.

This is what the college diploma has always done. It has created a guild that restricts entry by non-certified people. This keeps wages high.

To obtain the diploma, a person must pay money to the trainers. The trainers are located at one center or special regional centers. Journeying to the center adds costs. Quitting a full-time job back home also adds to the expense. Forcing students to attend pre-requisites adds to the cost. Everything is done to screen access to the knowledge.

So, the knowledge does not spread. This is the crucial function of the academic screening system, especially for practical knowledge: healing people and building things.

For the first time in the history of man, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has opened the gates to all comers. It has said, "You won't get certified by us, but you can get the classroom knowledge. If you are smart enough to teach yourself, you will have the knowledge."

MIT has now removed the most important layers of bureaucracy: the layers associated with classroom instruction.

1. The fee to obtain the training

2. The cost of journeying to a training center

3. The pre-requisite system

4. The cost of quitting your job

This has de-mystified the entire guild procedure. It says this: "If you are smart enough, you can master the initial content."

This opens the door for the revival of the local apprenticeship system. Here is where a student masters the non-textbook basics of a field, which are at least as important as the textbook content.

Think of a written account of how to tie a shoelace. Then think of a parent's training: apprenticeship.

There is one remaining price barrier: the high cost of textbooks. But Amazon, eBay, and the many on-line used book sellers let you buy older editions for $20 instead of $150. A textbook one edition behind is 99% effective in every undergraduate major.

The gatekeeping function of the academic guild is now under assault by one of the supreme gatekeepers: MIT.

REMOVING BUREAUCRACY

The next step in the liberation of society is the introduction of certification by examination without diplomas. There would no requirement to attend a school. Just pass the exam.

This terrifies every guild. Smart people could get in just by passing the guild's entry-level exam.

The ultimate breakthrough would be a requirement that every certified member of a guild would be required to pass the guild's entry exam every five years or else lose his official license to practice. That would mean the end of exams that screen for wage reasons rather than for technical reasons. The members would demand easier exams, so that they could pass. More students would pass. Wages would decline.

Finally, there would be a removal of state-chartered systems of professional licensing. It would not be illegal to sell any services at any price.

Combine these, and the bureaucratization of society would end.

If you think, "This is utopian," consider this: MIT has removed the crucial initial layer, which imposes the greatest financial burden.

A student in India who understands English and who has access to the Web can get an MIT education.

If other universities imitate MIT, the world of higher education will be radically changed for the better.

[DeepLurker]

Indeed.

And when you're diagnosed with cancer, or you/wife are having a baby, I bet it won't be the CEO of Vodafone (never forget the f'in Fone)

That would be a situation very low down on my list of preferences. Well, I'd be dead.

But the CEO of vodafone gets his money from the rest of us...without us he'd also have no cash

In the end we pay people to do stuff. We lavue nurses (maybe not enough) so we pay them. We value having a phone, so we pay for that. What we pay for it with is our own labour. It;s just a different route to transfer part of that labour-equivalent to the CEO of Voda than it is to a nurse.

From a practical point of view, a nurse saves lives and makes people better. The CEO of Voda runs a phone company. In terms of contribution, I'd agree there's no comparison but possibly not the way you mean

I think that using a CEO for this comparison is too complex for you

So let's try again: a farmer and a nurse live in a 3rd world country.

For argument's sake, the farmer has no tractor & uses a horse instead.

Now I'll repeat my question: can one survive without the other?

The farmer will carry on growing crops. He might die of a horrible preventable disease, but that's life's luck.

The nurse will definitely starve without the farmer's constant financial support. No ifs or buts.

So the farmer is more important. End of story.

[Faithman]

No but all those 'non clinicals' that are lazy cling ons should go, fact. NEXT?

Very True - having been acquainted with the system, the waste is unbelievable

[GBdamo]

That response did. The implication from that post is that you'd get this under the private sector but not public.

That response from this statement.

I guarantee you'd pay the same amount of tax.

The Government would just find something else to spend it on or give it to private companies on your behalf.

[jonboy]

20% pay cut acrross the board would be similar level to what we have seen in my indstry.

Public sector workers would take this as a joke though. Shows the mentality.

No. I'm sure we'd have to take it very seriously. And of course we'd have to try to negotiate if we could, as I'm sure you did. Mind you, we haven't had the big payrises and bonuses and health care and other package stuff that people seem to think we've had... it wouldn't be like going back tto the normal life of only one spanish villa and two short breaks a year. It would be a real pay cut affecting people's real lives. Not to say that hasn't happened to you too of course, cos it must be awful if it has. Though why turn on people in the same boat I dunno? What about the big cash and the big tax dodgers?

[SNACR]

I'm sure you are differentiating between public spending and public sector organisations/services?

Why not have a little think along with some of the other balloon-heads about the difference and then decide what you want to 'spend' the diminishing kitty on. Try not to be too opaque though, we need some real content to inform what happens to our cash. Otherwise you're all a bit pointless... oh.

New car or HRT? More jobs or more hip ops? More liquidity or more funded university places? More community regeneration or more lending? More borrowing/spending or more frequent refuse collection? Street lighting or high-street finance? Then some of the harder ones: cataract op or more cancer drugs, extended end-of-life care or euthanasia, operation or prevention services?

Very difficult calls, well some of them and they're not mutually exclusive. But we need to get the whole thing on the table and prioritise based on people's need.

That's not just directed at you harpic but all you guys who think it's as simple as "sack anyone non-clinical earning >£40K cos thay're ALL lazy cling-ons, fact". NEXT?

Perhaps it is that simple, I sacked hundreds of staff last year without any decrease in sales (in fact they increased slightly for a while). On that basis I reckon you could ditch at least a million from the public sector.

[winkie]

But of course you're right.

Same of any (most) organisations.

Same for the banks operating with public money.

Same of the companies located here facilitated by development agency or local government lead in money.

Same for universities who give students little following big public investment.

....?

Yes, but we have a choice on what we want to use in the private sector, what shop to shop in, what bank to bank at what airline we want to fly with and what company share we want to invest in....with the public sector we have no choice and they don't seem to have a reason or purpose to want to ' live within a budget' they seem to think they have an ever ending pot of cash to spend at a whim.

Just my perception.

[GBdamo]

Are we talking about spending on public services or public spending... on anything?

What do you want to cut? What are the efficiencies?

Our local CEO goes through the whole budget line-by-line monthly, cos all necks are on the block for financial break-even.

It aint a personal thing. But back in 1996 our total public spending was £340b, now it's over £600b.

What have we got for that?

[Guest absolutezero]

I think that using a CEO for this comparison is too complex for you

So let's try again: a farmer and a nurse live in a 3rd world country.

For argument's sake, the farmer has no tractor & uses a horse instead.

Now I'll repeat my question: can one survive without the other?

The farmer will carry on growing crops. He might die of a horrible preventable disease, but that's life's luck.

The nurse will definitely starve without the farmer's constant financial support. No ifs or buts.

So the farmer is more important. End of story.

I love the fact that your world is so black and white. Along with that of most of the private sector enthusiasts on here.

[Guest absolutezero]

That response from this statement.

But we've privatised all that, remember?

So the Government won't spend anything on those things.