To want to ban all outsourcing , tendering and rediscover the joys of institutional cohesion?

Dear Jess,
Of course there are many things better in life : the quality and variety of sandwiches and coffee have hugely improved ( tuna, egg and cress and ham being the staples of my impoverished childhood) but united, principled moral business etiquette , in my very humble opinion, is not a 'growth industry '.

Apologies, I am on my soap box ( even though it's Tuesday) but I want to see a fairer world and to the rest of you , nanaej, whenim64, and Greatnan , I agree and I am increasingly shocked that no-one is screaming out about the break-down of efficiency or effectiveness when contracting out is the only governing principle. I was shocked but not surprised by your revelations .

It was definitely never perfect but I didn't think we'd venture so far from common sense . ��

The rich, strong and powerful have always exploited the poor, weak and powerless. We just know more about it now. I wish I could think that a change of government would mean that the 'old boy network' would lose some of its grip, but since 1997 I have become totally disillusioned. For a time, I thought the Libdems might offer us a ray of hope - more disappointment.
The Labour party is putting its own apparatchiks into safe seats, instead of the local grass roots members. The answer is for ordinary people to join the party, attend meetings, make a lot of noise in the local media.
I can't do that, as I am non-resident, but I pay tax in England and I have a large family living there - even if this did not apply, injustice and exploitation would still make me very angry.
If I lived in England, I might vote for the Socialist Workers Party, if they put up a candidate.

I agree with Otw's original post, other than the grammar school bit. I'm in the camp that believes grammar schools contributed to social division.
Greatnan is right to say the Labour party would benefit if more people joined and became active at local meetings. I find our local meetings are dominated by the same group who have dominated for years. I realise if I want to influence, I need to be active, but my experience on and off over many years hasn't left me feeling positive about that. Like Otw, I am surprised there isn't more public dissent about privatisation, especially given the mess that so many private organisations have made (G4S, hospital cleaning etc).

Nothing at all wrong with the grammar school system, it worked, as much as anything is allowed to work. I assume a lot of you will have a greenhouse to bring on the more sensitive and suitable plants? Nothing wrong with weeds either, they are the same as your special plants, but in the wrong place.
If people had realised that their Johnny was never going to be a teacher, doctor judge, whatever school he attended, and steered him in the direction he probably wanted to go in anyway, to become a plumber, or the like. The better everything would have been.
Some politician realised it would be a good vote catcher to mix kids up a bit see that everyone got a certificate to placate the parents. To do that meant dumbing down a bit making the exams easier, inventing a few subjects to pass, and holding back the more academic. Those that attend university now often have to take a term or more before they are capable of even starting their studies not being clever enough to start.
As a country we are way down on the academic scale, far behind many other countries, and fiddling around repeatedly with the system doesn't help. A concerted effort to get it right, once and for all, is what is required.Each slight change effects, several "years" of children,who have to adapt to the change, it isn't fair.

oh darn. Long post earlier did not register. Got distracted by the athletics maybe.
Two points:
There is no contest between being a woman or gay or a member of an ethic minority in the workplace if you compare the 1960s to now. Huge improvement.
also
It is clear that the organisations of this country are more effective and efficient than they were then. The amount of wealth generated is vastly greater. This is what allows a much higher relative expenditure on education and other public services than in the 1960s.

Sorry JessM I have yo disagree.
I thing grammar schools were good.

The NHS has definitely deteriorated

Hi Jess M - I agree with your views on the various improvements since the 60's. Grammar schools may have been good for those who got places. Secondary Modern schools were not good for the vast majority. Yes, some working class children made the leap as a result of grammar schools, but the vast majority were consigned at 11 to poor education, and the knowledge they were "failures".
Good comprehensive schools are so much better than the previous system. Poor comps seem usually to be in areas of high deprivation, with all the problems associated with poverty.
A very close friend who is now 72 and lived in the same town as me in the 60's, talked about his sense of affirmation when he was escorted, aged 18 to a gay bar. It would have been illegal for him to form a sexual relationship with another man. But he said it was such a joy to realise he wasn't alone, as there were 8 other men in the bar. He believed that was the sum total of gays in our town - briefly.
Sometimes, I feel our generation has't contributed as much to improvements as we would have liked, but reflecting on the progress for women, gay men and women, race etc, confirms progress has been made. Long may it continue.

Fair point , sexual and racial prejudice has been exposed as the pathetic side of human nature that it is but I'm not sure that the 'wealth generated' is being spent effectively and I am sure that , like America, the rich /poor divide is a growth area that we should be distancing ourselves from.

Grammars rivalled the traditional 'public' schools ; the ones again producing a depressingly high number of Oxbridge and Russell group candidates . It allowed intellectually capable children to be given a 'classical' education . Personally , on my soap box , I would reintroduce them with the stipulation that children can only apply if they have attended state primary schools ( also, it should be possible to enter at 11, 13 and 16). Furthermore I would allow education to be an ageless resource . Those kids who fail to gain basic qualifications at 16/18 should be given a chance to return ( FOC) when and if they want later in life . Also I would re-introduce an apprenticeship system which would value the very real fact that practical intelligence is vital in our society ( some of the the most successful folk I know are plumbers, electricians and carpenters ). Oh, I'm loving my soap box ( half of me is laughing at myself because I'm generally a quiet, non-argumentative type) and I'm sorry if you disagree with my views . Children are all different , it doesn't mean they cannot work as one but they have individual needs and I'm not sure that a one size fits all approach maximises potential. Sorry , I'll leap off my box and wait for the answer ......

Oh Otw- I wouldn't reintroduce grammar schools (some towns still have them) But - if you introduced all your other ideas, I would not oppose you keeping the grammar schools already in existence. I went to 7 primary schools, and sat the 11 plus 3 days after arriving at the new school. there was no national curriculum, so I "did" the Vikings and Anglo Saxons several times, but never established confidence with maths, which was taught differently every school I went to. I went to a secondary modern school, with a head teacher who I now know to have been a dedicated, and excellent man. We were streamed, had houses, sports days, produced Gilbert and Sullivan operas and did choral speaking. The whole school was involved in the twice yearly productions, one play, one G&S, so if you weren't a singer, maybe you could act. We had seamstresses and carpenters, and I remember a real buzz. So I was lucky - until we moved again, and the next secondary modern didn't do O levels, which I was half way through. The head from my 1st school wrote to the grammar school in our new area, to say I should have had a place at 11 and was expected to get good grades at O level. Sadly, I went to a dreadful Sec Mod, with bullying and absolutely no commitment to education. I took myself off to the local FE college and did some A levels and went on to Uni. That option will be much less open now. The cost of University will exclude so many young people who didn't get qualifications at the "right age". Get back on that soap box, if you'd run the world when I was 15, I'd have gone on to the grammar school, done my O levels, and gone on to A levels at the "right' age, rather than in my 20's.

galen i was referring to private sector, which is where most outsourcing takes place. (up to now any way)
And you know as well as I do that a lot of the tests, procedures and drugs are much more sophisticated and expensive than they were 40 years ago. Even if the nursing was better. Friend of mine has just been discharged after 54 days in a single room, getting treated for a sudden onset blood cancer. He would not have made it in the 60s. And he certainly would not have had a single room to protect him from infection with his neutrophils at zero.
Like many other illnesses, the outcomes are much better - so if you judge the NHS in that way, IT is better.
When I went to grammar school it was in a bunch of sheds with no sports pitches. The buildings had been put up as temporary just after WW1 (this was in the 60s). The books were falling to bits and the teachers lamented there was no money to replace them. Much of the teaching was dry an lacking in inspiration. In 6th form I had the advantage of tiny groups for science teaching. If I had gone to a sec mod there would have been no science labs at all and even fewer facilities. Then as now, if you have a highly selected intake the results will be quite good.
I think now even the worst comprehensive school is way better than the secondary modern education available in the 60s (in much of the country - there may have been exceptions). A wider curriculum, a chance to do all subjects because there are facilities above and beyond the minimum (perhaps a domestic science room). And let us not forget that those who went to sec mod - the vast majority, finished their education completely at 14 or 15. Raised to 16 in the 70s. Ofsted requirements have cranked up year on year and the quality of teaching is hugely improved - you cannot get away with doing dictation all lesson, every lesson, like my history teacher used to do.

Of course Britain has made great strides in attitudes towards racism, sexism, and homophobia and there have been huge advances in medicine although the NHS is now in a parlous state. Education is infinitely better than it was for the majority in my day (I suspect the only people who want to bring back grammar schools are those who went to one).
None of these improvements have anything to do with the constant awarding of contracts to useless organisations.

The general public are not protesting because they don't know about it! As the proprietors of most newspapers are themselves using all kinds of tax avoidance schemes, (including The Guardian) they are not likely to be too vociferous about the scandals of the big four accounting firms which are still allowed to audit companies when they have been complicit in irregularities.
I can't reproduce page after page of Private Eye, but it is not an expensive magazine and certainly opens your eyes to what is going on in government, the NHS, military procurement, the police, and 'jobs for the boys'. Try googling 'Dave Hartnett', former head of the Inland Revenue, and see how much he allowed some companies to get away with, and where he is now earning a fat salary.

I went to grammar school, Greatnan and definitely don't want them to come back. They still have them in nearby Trafford.

Actually , I think Grammar schools were generally full of poor teaching but a lot of people did benefit from the level at which the teaching could be aimed. Someone needs to explain to me why , if we all have very different gifts of abilities ( emotional , practical,artistic , scientific etc.etc. ) why do we have every sort of employment path running towards a degree ?What is wrong with streaming if you can put greater investment into those that would otherwise have difficulties by allowing them to have smaller classes and a wider range of practical courses , whilst the more academically able will generally fair well in larger classes with frankly dull but challenging teaching (I had to survive heraldry classes !! ) .

Otw10413 I agree: costly method of procurement.

If you look at PFI/PPP contracts, where public bodies liaise with private companies during a 'competitive dialogue process'. The taxpayer is in essence paying twice for the same thing; paying towards the loan and the interest on the public body/government funding side and then paying again when the public body/government makes monthly payments to the private companies for their side of the loan plus interest. Plus of course the profit they make. Short-sighted.

I went to a rotten convent grammar school, When, where all the unmarried teachers went home as soon as the last lesson ended. No clubs, drama, sport.......
However, I think the OP was about much more than education - perhaps somebody has some ideas as to why all shades of government have continued to dish out these lucrative contracts to firms who have manifestly failed in the past. Of course, I am just an old cynic.............

I agree , it is outsourcing and destroying cohesion that is ridiculously costly and ineffective !

JessM I qualified in 1968. We always had isolation units even then. We called it barrier nursing and the precautions were more stringent than nowadays. The wards etc were also much cleaner and there very little cross infection. Unlike now! I never stay in hospital longer than I can help and have even discharged myself as the state of the wards has been such that cross infection is inevitable

Outsourcing good for bottom line. Bad for employees. e.g. bins here get collected by serco. They do a very efficient job. Employees work in a very focussed way. Some of them are even women! Bet they are not on the kind of contracts they would have if they were council employees though. That is why they are used. If they took services like that back into councils and put the extra costs onto bottom line council tax would shoot up. But the down side is that there are fewer secure public sector jobs these days.
Another example of outsourcing is car industry. I know someone who works there in a now very successful plant, managing a large "temp" workforce. Why to they choose to have a temp workforce? Flexibility is one thing - if sales go up or down they can increase or decrease the workforce accordingly. Why else? Because the permanent workforce in these plants took the piss on such a spectacular scale. e.g., they routinely took their "full entitlement" of 30 sick days a year, whether or not they were sick. Another scenario was: 2 weeks factory shut down, then a large proportion of workforce took their banked time off in lieu, immediately after shut down. management tolerated this. This is not the 60s, it is within the last 10 years.
Is it any wonder that against this background when someone on one of these contracts leaves, they are replaced initially by an outsourced person?

I have never seen a good example of outsourcing in social care. Not good for employees or, more importantly, for service users. Services for vulnerable people should not have a profit motive. And agency staff are paid a lot more than council employees for doing the same job, and they get leave and pension entitlement via their agency. It doesn't add up.

An outsourced human person ? One with a family, aspirations for a steady , stable , maintainable future ? If those who managed workforces actually strengthened and united the workforce by sharing the goals and rewards ( like John Lewis, where everyone is a partner over 16 hours) then you'd perhaps ,get a better chance of effective cohesion . Music is what I do and it requires harmony gained through listening , respect , hard work and creativity ; something we all need . When those people were taking advantage of the situation , what was the management doing ? Why should the management then outsource the work despite having failed to manage effectively. They will , no doubt , get to keep their permanent jobs despite their failures. Outsourced management , me thinks , would never take off and why - because they couldn't afford the contracts ( and pay-offs) and they need sustainability - which is all any normal human wants . Is that a fact or not ? I believe in the basic goodness and equality of human beings ; I'm lucky in life despite personal pain and cannot understand how we can fail to see that sharing our wealth is only reasonable . The bottom line is not the way to run the human race - it's a way to lose the human race !

Just a few off the cuff comments after reading this thread.

France - Barrier nursing is excellent. When I was in hospital, cleaners refused to even touch my mobile, asking me to do so instead, to prevent cross-contamination. As financially adrift as the UK. Basically bankrupt.

USA - No-contract work: this does sometimes suit families. My son is on a no contract, so if there's no work, he doesn't do it, but when there is, he does, if it fits the family schedule. With a child with special needs, he is able to be around. Many 'stay-at-dads' find this a suitable way forward, as they can fit their hours around their specific needs. Having said that, it's not good for the main wage earner.

Schooling - Jess Agree with your comments on schooling.

Deserving I was a weed - but went on to get a Masters. It's never too late, eh? And what is 'getting it right' ?

I remember telling our sons [back in the 90's) that the days had long gone where you had a job for life; that they should be innovative, prepared to have more than one string to their bow and to take charge of their lives, because no one else will. Look for different opportunities, be alternative and and challenge the status quo .

Things are a bit of a mess, I agree, but the youngsters are the future. We need to look to them and educated them in lateral thinking.

I agree with you Otw except to say that there are many agency managers in the public sector now, and they are a disaster. No commitment to the service, only to their own CV and huge pay packets. They reinvent the wheel and cause mayhem and then leave for someone else - another agency manager - to repeat the process, and so on..... Those of us on permanent contracts are left feeling like the stupid ones for putting up with it. And permanent contracts are no longer secure anyway, as I found out last year when my job was removed at one stroke.

I agree nightowl that is it difficult to oursource social care. But my MIL seems happy with her private provider that is subsidised by council. She had a previous lot that were ok. They had to provide their own cars and no allowance. The staff may get the minimum pension but nothing resembling a local council pension surely?
otw it would be easier to debate with you if you did not use so many words at once. Hard to read I find.

Yes Jess you are right, the care staff do not get the same benefits that permanent staff used to get and in fact the ones I knew had very poor terms and conditions. I think my post was a bit unclear (trying to do too many things at once), and I was referring to the qualified social workers who earn a lot more through an agency than they would as permanent workers. That's what doesn't add up.

Jess, what do you feel about huge contracts being given to companies who have failed miserably? Capita? Serco and G4S prisons? The mess-up over the rail franchises? The computer systems that never worked? Even air traffic control is apparently up for grabs.
I would have no objection to the profit motive if it meant efficient services at reasonable cost, but it hasn't worked like that.
And I agree that nationalised industries which were not being properly managed should have been overhauled, rather than privatised.

Care homes are the next big scandal which will hit the headlines, I think.
Treasury Minister Sajid Javid accepted an £11,000 donation from a care home in his constituency that had failed to provide 'safe and appropriate' care for residents.

I am not sure how many words you think posters are allowed to use, but I am with Otw all the way!