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

And another example of the senselessness of outsourcing! www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10243899/Government-spent-800million-on-temporary-staff-despite-redundancies.html

I do not know where you live, OTW, but many utilities are already owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure. They own Wales and West Utilities, UK Power Networks, Northumbrian Water, Seabank Power and Northern Gas Networks.
Quote from their 2012 press release.
"The United Kingdom regulated businesses have generated good returns to the Cheung Kong Group. Profit contribution from the United Kingdom in 2011 was an increase of 216% over the previous year"
They own 27% of gas distribution, 30% of electricity and 7% of the water.

JessM "The only way we can retain a decent benefit system (and a decent health system) is to get more people in work and paying tax."

How do you feel about stay at home mothers (or indeed fathers)?

It seems to be a privilege now for mothers to be able to stay at home to raise and nuture their children themselves.

Children are our future, the parents lucky enough to be able to stay at home and nuture are doing one of the most important 'jobs' in society.

Government is doing it's dambdest to separate children from their families at an earlier and earlier age.

Take the new childcare voucher scheme that the government is currently consulting on.

Seems to me that many working mothers (and fathers) would like to be able to stay at home and be the one to bring up their children rather than sub-contracting out the care to a third party. However many just can't afford to, and not just so that they get their holidays abroad etc, so that they can pay the bills and put food on the table. Those family units will no doubt appreciate this help. Some family units choose to be a dual-income family for many and varied reasons no doubt. Both these types of family unit receive support one way or another; usually to help pay for childcare.

Some family units have a parent who doesn't go to work, they have sacrificed their earning capacity so that there is someone there to look after (raise and nurture) their children and so don't need childcare as they don't need to sub-contract the care of their children out. This family unit only has one earner, but that one earner pays proportionately more tax than a family unit with two incomes. I do see that type of family unit being treated less fairly tax-wise. It would make sense if the non-earning parent (whether that be mother or father) could transfer their personal tax allowance to the earning parent. This would help even out the inequalities on how different types of family unit are supported. Tax as a household not as individuals. After all a dual-earning family receives benefits as a household not as individuals.

On £36,000 Single Income Family pay £9,000, and Dual Income Family pay £6,500.
Then child benefit was removed in an unfair way. Single Income Family on £60,000 lost all theirs, Dual Income Family on £100,000 (50 + 50) keeps theirs.

It's such a shame that it appears not to be acceptable to take a few years out of the workforce to raise children.

What worries me as much as anything is the number of public sector services that have been outsourced to American companies.
Plasma Resources UK has been sold to Bain Capital, a hedge fund set up by Mitt Romney. If you look on their website, you find that Bain Capital buy and then sell very quickly in order to make a quick buck. They are not fussy who they sell to, either.
Do you know who owns your water company now? I bet it's not who you thought it was, in most cases.
Do you know who owns your Gas and Electricity company?
Are you worried about why Cameron and Osborne are so in favour of fracking ? I am.
As many other people say, follow the money.
Who owns your GP practice? Every building that the NHS owns has been listed under a company to sell off as much surplus land as possible, but the money does not go back into the NHS. If it did, the NHS would not be in the trouble it is.

Well said otw. Business models can apply only to a certain degree, and we can glean some useful frameworks from business, but then ethics, risk of not intervening and quality of the service have to override cost. Business could also learn a lot about dealing with people and not following the money to the detriment of everything else!

Dear Greatnan, Lilygran and Mishap and others ,
I agree that there is not one good reason for outsourcing ( so glad Greatnan that you're still debating). If you know what you need for a home, you don't describe it in great detail, then find someone else a commission for getting it cheaply .
Jess M, Wales and Scotland may be trying to keep their health system but we have to fight to keep our NHS free at the point of delivery , not just for our children but for the fact that it is the sort of legislated institution that generations in the future will recognise as a great step for mankind ( I'm fairly sure what history teachers of the future will make of outsourcing) .I cannot abide this acceptance that business ethics must , in order to succeed, be based on a bottom-line is all philosophy when it patently is not. Who wants to be filthy rich , whilst having to live in a barbed wire enclosure to stop the poor and starving stealing from you . Why don't the hard-working customs and 'excuse'folk seek the other 29 percent corporation tax from the multi-million conglomerates that successfully avoid tax ? China and India are very productive - should their business practices be the ones we seek to emulate ?

There are good reasons for hiring in on a temporary basis and even for hiring in more permanently - payroll services, for example, legal expertise, catering or to cover an unexpected surge in business. There is no good reason that I can see for outsourcing key services. We know why it is done, as many posters have said. The main reasons are political; cut down union membership, put business in the way of the private sector, make it look as though the public sector is smaller than it is, reduce pension and redundancy liability and keep wages low. Since the disadvantages are 'soft' and often unquantifiable ( morale, commitment, better experience of work, better access to training) and the advantages are 'hard' (healthier bottom line, smaller work-force, fewer on-going financial implications) I don't think we're going to see the clock turned back.

Outsourcing in public services simply does not work, and we have seen this over the last few decades; but no-one has the courage to back down on this and recreate cohesive services - but with better management, as this was indeed sometimes lacking in the past.

The whole privatisation and outsourcing trend was purely political - it had nothing whatever to do with doing the best thing for the services involved.

The NHS and social services have suffered enormously, leaving us in our current mess.

I have been travelling by train a bit recently and in order to get to Devon I go on trains from 3 different companies - now that is daft. I once got trapped in the Severn tunnel in a train that needed to be shunted out. We had to wait about two hours - there were trains available to do it, but they belonged to different companies and would have cost-a-load to hire - so we had to wait and wait in the dark with no lights in the carriages until a train from the same company was available. Sigh.

Of course there are things that have improved in society, as discussed above, but the fragmentation of our public services has led to chaos and poor accountability. Sometime this has to stop and sanity prevail.

As to grammar schools - they served many children from poorer backgrounds very well indeed - I would count myself among them. The crux of the problem is the devaluation of practical skills - success in education is measured in academic terms and this is nonsense. Schools that provide a practical education should not be seen as second best, but as having their own value and importance. We need to shake off the Victorian attitiudes that devalue these skills.

I am puzzled - most of my examples of corruption relate to UK companies or councils. I have not suggested that Britain continues to employ more and more people in the public sector - only that it is conducted in an honest fashion.
Surely businesses can grow in an ethical and decent manner? If not, I give up all hope.
Of course many things have improved in this century and the last, but that does not mean that everything in the garden is lovely.

sorry here is the GDP graph
www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dgdp+uk+wiki&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=oYMMUqOiL-KL0AXy1IGoAw#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&ei=oYMMUpPFMqG30QXC2YH4BA&fp=cc5200476c27da91&q=gdp+uk+wiki&rls=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ7xYoAA

What is interesting about your examples greatnan are that they pertain to deals outside the EU, where bribery may still be the norm. The EU area has improved beyond all recognition.
My reason for defending the 20th C against decades past is that:
It is not all bad.
It is more productive by many times and modern business practices have made this happen http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dgdp+uk+wiki&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=oYMMUqOiL-KL0AXy1IGoAw#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&ei=oYMMUpPFMqG30QXC2YH4BA&fp=cc5200476c27da91&q=gdp+uk+wiki&rls=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ7xYoAA
The country does not have the luxury of being able to employ more and more people in the public sector under better and better conditions. This is how Italy has got its economy in a mess, to name one.
We have to compete with other countries if we are to create and retain jobs. No good retreating to a nice little cosy bunker and have a love-in. Unemployment would inevitably keep on rising and we can't afford to pay more and more benefits. The only way we can retain a decent benefit system (and a decent health system) is to get more people in work and paying tax.
Most workplaces I have been in, and there have been a few, are not dysfunctional. They are on average more civilised places than workplaces used to be.

I agree that the English NHS plans are a complete and utter lash up. The end of it will be more like Australia where you have to traipse around to various private clinics to get tests done. x ray here, ECG there. It is not thought through, or well planned. Looking forward to going to Wales where it ain't gonna happen!

On socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk there is new evidence that Stephen Bubb, the chair of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, was lobbying to persuade Jeremy Hunt not to water down the section 75 privatisation regulations. This was along with the NHS Partners Network, which includes Virgin Care, United Health and Care UK.
This was in 2010. In 2011 Stephen Bubb was given a knighthood.
Virgincare, United Health and Care UK all send their profits offshore to save paying all the tax they should.
Does this sound like the sort of thing you believe in whenever you give to charity?
A spokesperson for the charity called Cancercare has said it will benefit from the changes to the NHS, becoming a "serious and competitive player." I do not know about you, but I do not want charies to start competing for NHS work. That is not their job, whatever Stephen Bubb thinks.

Yes I have been and I do appreciate it! It made my working life so much more enjoyable.

You are fortunate indeed Nanaej to always have worked alongside such pleasant people.

Serious Fraud Office admits losing thousands of documents linked to BAE

The Serious Fraud Office has admitted accidentally sending a huge cache of confidential documents from an investigation into Britain's biggest arms firm, BAE, to the wrong person. The documents had been compiled during a six-year investigation into allegations that BAE had paid bribes around the world to secure lucrative arms contracts. At its most controversial point, Tony Blair's government stopped the SFO from investigating alleged bribes to Saudi royals in a £43bn arms deal.

Eddie Cunningham, one of the whistleblowers who gave confidential information to the SFO during its investigation, said: "I am quite astounded. My concern is who got this information and whether it has been copied. This gives one a lot of concern about passing information to a government body that had been so lax."

I received the above report from a whistleblowing organisation to which I subscribe.

But I was being flippant nanaej I didn't want anyone to take it very seriously!

I have seen it. There are some people who are not as bright as others. She may have been a very lovely person. Whilst I understand how frustrating it can be when someone does not understand something that appears obvious to you or is clearly not right for a job I think 'idiot' is a bit unkind.

nanaej I was basing that on what has been said on this thread, some say employers are self interested, some say the unions are. We see the press bashing just about everyone for their selfishness................. I have worked with people who have worked hard for the good of the business and also with some lazy so and sos! Have a look at my flippant thread about employing idiots and ask yourself if that person had any interest at all in her job

I thought you were leaving this subject Greatnan !!

Movedalot I think it is sad that you feel 'self interest will in most cases come first'

My work experience is not that . I have been fortunate to work alongside many, many people who did not put themselves first. They made sacrifices and worked hard when they could have just said ICBA to make sure a job was well done. Except for temporary student work in retail and private care homes I have always worked as a 'public servant'.

Oh, I think I understand human nature only too well!

Jess among other things Capita administers the Teachers' Pension Scheme.

I agree with most of what you say Jess. I worked for a huge organisation which decided to outsource a large section of its work. I had produced statistics on the efficiency of the different, but similar, departments which pointed to way of making huge savings but they had decided to outsource at great expense. The jobs went to Poland and India and the company decided that they would accept the lower level of service to make the financial savings. Such is life.

This morning I heard a programme talking about the 111 service and it was said that the Civil Servants in charge had decided how much it would cost to provide the service and then outsourced at about 30% cheaper! They have a duty to look at the bigger picture when they outsource such contracts. I felt the same about the G4S debacle.

Although we might all like to think that 'profit' should not be the main motive we do need to understand human nature, whether it is a boss or the humblest employee, self interest will in most cases come first.

JessM, I do not need to give you evidence. Greatnan is doing it for me.
One of your examples is schools. What do you think Gove is doing when allowing his friends to set up free schools, and taking money away from the state school system, even in areas where there is no need for another school.
The NHS system is now getting full of government cronies. Just look at the list of board members of Monitor. They are all ex board members of McKinsey, KPMG, etc. Pulse, a magazine for GPs says that 1 in 5 CCG board members have potential conflict of interest. 23% are directors, owners, partners or shareholders in private healthcare providers.
Pulse also said that 38 CCGs did not have a publicly available register of interests on their website. That might have changed now, but I'm with Greatnan on this.

It's a sweeping statement Greatnan "the rich, strong and powerful have always exploited the poor, weak and powerless" (think I remembered that correctly) I agree in some cases but there are also many instances of philanthropy by the rich, not just in the past but also currently. I'm not surprised you feel very angry if you feel this way.