Posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/21/david-cameron-public-services-private-bidders
"Unions reacted furiously after he outlined his plans to "completely change" public services by bringing in a "presumption" that private companies, voluntary groups or charities are as able to run schools, hospitals and many other council services as the state."
I personally don't think there should be a "presumption", there should only be a matter of who is most able to provide the service.
"Unison, the country's largest public sector union, warned that the proposals would result in a "postcode lottery" of services and a mountain of bureaucracy generated by a welter of private sector contracts"
These found fair enough objections, it's just a matter of whether they're true.
I have to say that I'm inclined to think he has a point with this:
"Barber said Cameron's suggestion that the plans would reduce bureaucracy was "particularly laughable".
"Privatisation replaces democratic oversight and accountability with a contract culture that is a job creation scheme for lawyers," he added.
"Voters and service users lose their say in what will be a get even richer quicker scheme for the companies that win contracts."
Showing posts with label public service reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public service reform. Show all posts
Monday, 21 February 2011
David Cameron to end 'state monopoly' in provision of public services
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/21/david-cameron-public-services
Now, personally I've long believed in that. unlike many of my lefty mates, I don't believe that the state should have a monopoly on the provision of services. I think that the best provider should provide it, I don't really care who it is that provides it so long as it is there. In my view, the role of the state is to ensure that those most in need are provided for, and to provide that service if it is the best provider, but I don't think it should be the only option.
But, as ever, the coalition government under Cameron makes plans and outlines them in purest conservative philosophy and dogma. Personally, I think his statement that "The state will still have a role in ensuring "fair funding, ensuring fair competition, and ensuring that everyone - regardless of wealth - gets fair access" is as much bollocks as David Willett's promise to ensure that poor children can reach the best universities. The problem was that the key question was the last asked and he ducked it without being held to account.
Now, personally I've long believed in that. unlike many of my lefty mates, I don't believe that the state should have a monopoly on the provision of services. I think that the best provider should provide it, I don't really care who it is that provides it so long as it is there. In my view, the role of the state is to ensure that those most in need are provided for, and to provide that service if it is the best provider, but I don't think it should be the only option.
But, as ever, the coalition government under Cameron makes plans and outlines them in purest conservative philosophy and dogma. Personally, I think his statement that "The state will still have a role in ensuring "fair funding, ensuring fair competition, and ensuring that everyone - regardless of wealth - gets fair access" is as much bollocks as David Willett's promise to ensure that poor children can reach the best universities. The problem was that the key question was the last asked and he ducked it without being held to account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
