RugbyRebels

BBD wrote:To be fair my whole post was full of sweeping evaluations and if anyone felt I was having a pop at them or their partners etc then I apologise

It is true that there is good in all aspects of the above headings of society, I think its also true that at the moment we are seeming to plunge ever deeper into the mire at the moment....maybe thats a reflection of the narrow stream of negativity that the media mine for rolling stories 24/7 rather than widespread evidence of society being broken, but I do look at the world my kids are growing up in and wonder what kind of legacy they will be inheriting

Actually i was agreeing with you ref discipline. i do get annoyed by those who blame all the problems on funding.

Sandydragon wrote:

BBD wrote:To be fair my whole post was full of sweeping evaluations and if anyone felt I was having a pop at them or their partners etc then I apologise

It is true that there is good in all aspects of the above headings of society, I think its also true that at the moment we are seeming to plunge ever deeper into the mire at the moment....maybe thats a reflection of the narrow stream of negativity that the media mine for rolling stories 24/7 rather than widespread evidence of society being broken, but I do look at the world my kids are growing up in and wonder what kind of legacy they will be inheriting

Actually i was agreeing with you ref discipline. i do get annoyed by those who blame all the problems on funding.

as with all these things, there's an 'and'. Funding and effectiveness/efficiency, say.

if the magic money tree that some believe exists in the garden of No10 actually did sprout cash then it still wouldn't fix things, some of what we are suffering from is based on having the wrong values at the core of the decisions we make. People are very quick to blame the government or demand they take action or do more, regardless of costs and other priorities

in any political system where you have two parties vying constantly for power, and I mean over the years, not just the last month it is absolutely ridiculous to even consider that one party is always in the right and/or another is always in the wrong. If you stop and think about it, its a bizarre stance to take and it makes a mockery of reasoned debate and common sense. There is never only one route, there are always options and ramifications to consider. To be honest I don't care a lot about politics, I took an interest in the Brexit issue, got myself fairly well informed (comparatively) and since the vote have become more and more convinced that my previous stance of apathy was the right one. The mess thats being made of our governing process since then has been like a horrific car crash. Lines being drawn, arguments & counters, attacks and claims of victory, denials of defeat, hard v soft v reversal, second referendums, hard borders, Scottish independence etc.

Right now we are facing one of the most significant negotiations of our lifetime, its outcome is going to affect our grandchildren and great grandchildren and we are being drawn into a wrestling match in a pig sty, shit everywhere, loads of squealing and lots of costly mess. Utterly stupid in the circumstances regardless of where you are in the debate. Whats happening is weakening us all.

Agree with that. The current squabble over brexit is ludicrous. In light of a clear direction via the referendum on what sort of Brexit is required, MPs should be trying to form a consensus. There should have been a cross party committee on this, although it would be helpful if all the main parties actually had a consistent position. The Conservatives are badly split and Labour is about the same.

Probably the majority of MPs would support a softer version of Brexit, although would the wider public?

This little bit of history should be remembered always. This is what happens when you promise major constitutional change on the fly via a poorly thought out referendum.

I was going to add that there will never be enough money. Many parts of the state sector were badly inefficient and needed/ still need to change.

But regardless of how much the government spends, there will always be someone demanding more.

Sandydragon wrote:I was going to add that there will never be enough money. Many parts of the state sector were badly inefficient and needed/ still need to change.

But regardless of how much the government spends, there will always be someone demanding more.

Many parts of all sectors are inefficient. I don't think something being state run means it will inherently be worse

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I was going to add that there will never be enough money. Many parts of the state sector were badly inefficient and needed/ still need to change.

But regardless of how much the government spends, there will always be someone demanding more.

Many parts of all sectors are inefficient. I don't think something being state run means it will inherently be worse

Your probably right but can you name 1 state run sector (before or after it was privatised/nationalised) that is/was
run efficiently

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I was going to add that there will never be enough money. Many parts of the state sector were badly inefficient and needed/ still need to change.

But regardless of how much the government spends, there will always be someone demanding more.

Many parts of all sectors are inefficient. I don't think something being state run means it will inherently be worse

Your probably right but can you name 1 state run sector (before or after it was privatised/nationalised) that is/was
run efficiently

Not really, but I can't think of any truly efficient examples in the private sector either. I might allow something like the Mercedes F1 team is run efficiently, but there you're talking about highly educated, highly motivated and well paid staff, and really most organisation aren't going to come close to matching all of that all the time

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I was going to add that there will never be enough money. Many parts of the state sector were badly inefficient and needed/ still need to change.

But regardless of how much the government spends, there will always be someone demanding more.

Many parts of all sectors are inefficient. I don't think something being state run means it will inherently be worse

If you read Matthew Syed's book, Black Box thinking, you may question that, as I do. When you know you can't be allowed to fail, why would you innovate/improve/become more efficient/effective/take proper actions to mitigate risk, and in fact gradually become inefficient and so on; pretty much all the state run operations that I can remember were a bit pants. Now times have moved on, and maybe the constructs of these state run industries were wrong.....but I really doubt any governments abilities as operators still. As a tangential example, you could even look at the banks as such an enterprise that wouldn't be allowed to fail against massive risk taking- not state owned, but with a mindset that they'd always get bailed out (which was true here).

I'm with Banquo on this one. Private sector organisations can and do go under unless they are efficient. Public sector just doesn't have that impetus.

Sandydragon wrote:I'm with Banquo on this one. Private sector organisations can and do go under unless they are efficient. Public sector just doesn't have that impetus.

I hesitate to use the phrase....but growth mindset--- though this must be tempered with quality/risk management.

seems to me there are moderately efficient private industries, Pharmaceuticals, Software companies, Oil and Gas (mind, safety seems to have taken a back seat in some cases), Soft drinks manufacturers, Fast food outfits, Grocery retailers (though goes in cycles), German Car Manufacturing......unless it is being claimed that anything less than 100% efficient isn't truly efficient (and not sure how you measure that in the first place). The public sector industries we saw in the 60's and 70's were grossly inefficient.

Now, if there is one thing that the public sector is, is risk adverse.

Private sector companies fail when they get managed badly or the market moves on and leaves them behind. Public sectors just carry on running against a need or perceived political/societal need

I really don't see though how firms like Barclays, or Tesco, or Southern Rail or..., could be seen to run without waste/inefficiency. And I don't happen to agree going under is a major impetus for most workers in the private sector

Sandydragon wrote:Now, if there is one thing that the public sector is, is risk adverse.

that doesn't mean it does risk management efficiently or effectively tho. Plus depends what sort of risk- health and safety, financial etc

Digby wrote:Private sector companies fail when they get managed badly or the market moves on and leaves them behind. Public sectors just carry on running against a need or perceived political/societal need

I really don't see though how firms like Barclays, or Tesco, or Southern Rail or..., could be seen to run without waste/inefficiency. And I don't happen to agree going under is a major impetus for most workers in the private sector

Perverse way of looking at it, but then that's not surprising. You may notice I used the hideous phrase 'growth mindset', which is the opposite of the way you looked at what Matthew Syed wrote and that I agree with. We can give lists of well run private companies from around the globe, but (in the UK) said list for the state sector is vanishingly small; we may want to look at what German state run businesses do, its true.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Private sector companies fail when they get managed badly or the market moves on and leaves them behind. Public sectors just carry on running against a need or perceived political/societal need

I really don't see though how firms like Barclays, or Tesco, or Southern Rail or..., could be seen to run without waste/inefficiency. And I don't happen to agree going under is a major impetus for most workers in the private sector

Perverse way of looking at it, but then that's not surprising. You may notice I used the hideous phrase 'growth mindset', which is the opposite of the way you looked at what Matthew Syed wrote and that I agree with. We can give lists of well run private companies from around the globe, but (in the UK) said list for the state sector is vanishingly small; we may want to look at what German state run businesses do, its true.

Looking at it that way some doctors, teachers, soldiers, nurses and so on will be very driven to provide exceptional service, some may even manage to do so if not too weighed down by incompetent management.

I happen to think there'll be good, bad, and mainly a mix of both in both public and private.

Those enterprises that comprise and contribute directly to the fabric of society tend not to be 'energised' by competition, the way a Formula 1 racing team or a high street supermarket chain might be. My Mrs (A teacher - did we all marry teachers?) has a friend who runs a business that provides health visitors to the old and infirm living at home. Her profit has been so substantially squeezed by the living wage at one end and the price that health trusts are prepared to pay for her services at the other, that she can't afford to pay herself the living wage.

Now no-one will deny the need to pay workers a living wage, nor that our health services must be delivered as efficiently (OK, we mean cheaply) as possible. But surely it must be obvious that the candle of society is being burned at both ends - while someone is holding a blow-torch to the middle.

The answer? Bring back the poor-house? Lets get some more work out of those feckers. If you can't afford to retire or be chronically ill, then don't.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Private sector companies fail when they get managed badly or the market moves on and leaves them behind. Public sectors just carry on running against a need or perceived political/societal need

I really don't see though how firms like Barclays, or Tesco, or Southern Rail or..., could be seen to run without waste/inefficiency. And I don't happen to agree going under is a major impetus for most workers in the private sector

Perverse way of looking at it, but then that's not surprising. You may notice I used the hideous phrase 'growth mindset', which is the opposite of the way you looked at what Matthew Syed wrote and that I agree with. We can give lists of well run private companies from around the globe, but (in the UK) said list for the state sector is vanishingly small; we may want to look at what German state run businesses do, its true.

Looking at it that way some doctors, teachers, soldiers, nurses and so on will be very driven to provide exceptional service, some may even manage to do so if not too weighed down by incompetent management.

I happen to think there'll be good, bad, and mainly a mix of both in both public and private.

Ha, that's quite a corbynite switch of tack; I don't think anyone thinks of those individuals as being anything other than part of a state provided service (v a state run industry). And the NHS has huge scope to make the front line staff's lives a lot easier- and its a classic case of the senior management again knowing their piece won't be allowed to fail- I do quite a lot of work with the NHS in a non exec capacity (freebie, in case you should assail me), and can confirm the 'back office' is stuffed with money wasters.... obviously funding has to go up, as patient numbers and complexity and expense of treatment increase rapidly, but there is a lot of waste- and no hard impetus for change, they simply ignore the overspending. Its too much of a sacred cow to have the grown up debate- but I think the NHS needs taking out of political cycles, and overseen by competent people, who can take the key constituent parts with them (consultants to nurse and support staff- its a tough crowd). I agree they aspire to exceptional service in general, but I think its off tangent to what the core discussion was tbh.

Of course there will be good and bad; but I think being a state funded business that you know can't be allowed to fail leads to complacency (as you say, the enemy of the private business); I perhaps should have excluded specifically services that need to be provided by the state.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Those enterprises that comprise and contribute directly to the fabric of society tend not to be 'energised' by competition, the way a Formula 1 racing team or a high street supermarket chain might be. My Mrs (A teacher - did we all marry teachers?) has a friend who runs a business that provides health visitors to the old and infirm living at home. Her profit has been so substantially squeezed by the living wage at one end and the price that health trusts are prepared to pay for her services at the other, that she can't afford to pay herself the living wage.

Now no-one will deny the need to pay workers a living wage, nor that our health services must be delivered as efficiently (OK, we mean cheaply) as possible. But surely it must be obvious that the candle of society is being burned at both ends - while someone is holding a blow-torch to the middle.

The answer? Bring back the poor-house? Lets get some more work out of those feckers. If you can't afford to retire or be chronically ill, then don't.

Is that long hand for the state sector being squeezed? For sure, and education especially so. Funding is an issue....but not exactly the debate we were having. I for sure wasn't talking about state services, education, NHS, emergency service, armed forces. Maybe should have made it clear I was opposing renationalising some industries, rather than supporting privatising current state services.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Perverse way of looking at it, but then that's not surprising. You may notice I used the hideous phrase 'growth mindset', which is the opposite of the way you looked at what Matthew Syed wrote and that I agree with. We can give lists of well run private companies from around the globe, but (in the UK) said list for the state sector is vanishingly small; we may want to look at what German state run businesses do, its true.

Looking at it that way some doctors, teachers, soldiers, nurses and so on will be very driven to provide exceptional service, some may even manage to do so if not too weighed down by incompetent management.

I happen to think there'll be good, bad, and mainly a mix of both in both public and private.

Ha, that's quite a corbynite switch of tack; I don't think anyone thinks of those individuals as being anything other than part of a state provided service (v a state run industry). And the NHS has huge scope to make the front line staff's lives a lot easier- and its a classic case of the senior management again knowing their piece won't be allowed to fail- I do quite a lot of work with the NHS in a non exec capacity (freebie, in case you should assail me), and can confirm the 'back office' is stuffed with money wasters.... obviously funding has to go up, as patient numbers and complexity and expense of treatment increase rapidly, but there is a lot of waste- and no hard impetus for change, they simply ignore the overspending. Its too much of a sacred cow to have the grown up debate- but I think the NHS needs taking out of political cycles, and overseen by competent people, who can take the key constituent parts with them (consultants to nurse and support staff- its a tough crowd). I agree they aspire to exceptional service in general, but I think its off tangent to what the core discussion was tbh.

Of course there will be good and bad; but I think being a state funded business that you know can't be allowed to fail leads to complacency (as you say, the enemy of the private business); I perhaps should have excluded specifically services that need to be provided by the state.

I've only ever worked privately myself. And there are plenty of wastes of money walking around at all levels. And typically the main driver isn't customers, growth, efficiency, but simply meeting performance targets such that management bonus payments are made, even if the actions taken to meet the targets are illogical and counter productive as part of the bigger picture.

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Now, if there is one thing that the public sector is, is risk adverse.

that doesn't mean it does risk management efficiently or effectively tho. Plus depends what sort of risk- health and safety, financial etc

I was referring to individuals being afraid to make decisions. In terms of corporate risk management, there are varying levels of competence, although also plenty of examples of using RM and then seeking a scapegoat when it goes wrong (not that is just a public sector trait).

Banquo wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Those enterprises that comprise and contribute directly to the fabric of society tend not to be 'energised' by competition, the way a Formula 1 racing team or a high street supermarket chain might be. My Mrs (A teacher - did we all marry teachers?) has a friend who runs a business that provides health visitors to the old and infirm living at home. Her profit has been so substantially squeezed by the living wage at one end and the price that health trusts are prepared to pay for her services at the other, that she can't afford to pay herself the living wage.

Now no-one will deny the need to pay workers a living wage, nor that our health services must be delivered as efficiently (OK, we mean cheaply) as possible. But surely it must be obvious that the candle of society is being burned at both ends - while someone is holding a blow-torch to the middle.

The answer? Bring back the poor-house? Lets get some more work out of those feckers. If you can't afford to retire or be chronically ill, then don't.

Is that long hand for the state sector being squeezed? For sure, and education especially so. Funding is an issue....but not exactly the debate we were having. I for sure wasn't talking about state services, education, NHS, emergency service, armed forces. Maybe should have made it clear I was opposing renationalising some industries, rather than supporting privatising current state services.

That's an interesting one. I'm not sure I'd have ever supported privatising the power, water and train companies, but now they are it's not easy to reverse. I certainly wouldn't support any plans to renationalise on the cheap, as Corbyn might favour, as i'd have significant concerns about attracting investment into the UK economy if there isn't a fair price made. Firms such as BA, or Rolls-Royce I can't see any argument for them being other than private firms.

As a further comment privatising forensic services and air traffic control seems barking mad to me, both being much more about public service

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Looking at it that way some doctors, teachers, soldiers, nurses and so on will be very driven to provide exceptional service, some may even manage to do so if not too weighed down by incompetent management.

I happen to think there'll be good, bad, and mainly a mix of both in both public and private.

Ha, that's quite a corbynite switch of tack; I don't think anyone thinks of those individuals as being anything other than part of a state provided service (v a state run industry). And the NHS has huge scope to make the front line staff's lives a lot easier- and its a classic case of the senior management again knowing their piece won't be allowed to fail- I do quite a lot of work with the NHS in a non exec capacity (freebie, in case you should assail me), and can confirm the 'back office' is stuffed with money wasters.... obviously funding has to go up, as patient numbers and complexity and expense of treatment increase rapidly, but there is a lot of waste- and no hard impetus for change, they simply ignore the overspending. Its too much of a sacred cow to have the grown up debate- but I think the NHS needs taking out of political cycles, and overseen by competent people, who can take the key constituent parts with them (consultants to nurse and support staff- its a tough crowd). I agree they aspire to exceptional service in general, but I think its off tangent to what the core discussion was tbh.

Of course there will be good and bad; but I think being a state funded business that you know can't be allowed to fail leads to complacency (as you say, the enemy of the private business); I perhaps should have excluded specifically services that need to be provided by the state.

I've only ever worked privately myself. And there are plenty of wastes of money walking around at all levels. And typically the main driver isn't customers, growth, efficiency, but simply meeting performance targets such that management bonus payments are made, even if the actions taken to meet the targets are illogical and counter productive as part of the bigger picture.

You've not been to the right places and become too cynical. So I've worked in three example environments; private sector where growth and customer focus were king- brilliant, and everyone working in the same direction, with aligned objectives and so on; ex public sector gone private, which still bore the institutionalised scars of the public sector (performance management non existent, targets only related to internal metrics rather than serving the customer, slow moving decision making, cost cutting by buckshot (everyone get 10% say lopped off, rather than looking properly at say opportunity cost, union consultation and opposition at every step); and as a non-exec with public sector, where financial consequences were either ignored, outsourced through bad contracts, or parked under 'transformation' next year with 'lets get some consultants in to run another poorly specified procurement'. As you say, a mix of good and bad....but I know where the worst issues lay, and why. I guess you don't remember British Rail, but I was working with them as they went into privatisation.....and did they ever need it.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Now, if there is one thing that the public sector is, is risk adverse.

that doesn't mean it does risk management efficiently or effectively tho. Plus depends what sort of risk- health and safety, financial etc

I was referring to individuals being afraid to make decisions. In terms of corporate risk management, there are varying levels of competence, although also plenty of examples of using RM and then seeking a scapegoat when it goes wrong (not that is just a public sector trait).

gotcha and yes; lack of accountability/committees etc.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Ha, that's quite a corbynite switch of tack; I don't think anyone thinks of those individuals as being anything other than part of a state provided service (v a state run industry). And the NHS has huge scope to make the front line staff's lives a lot easier- and its a classic case of the senior management again knowing their piece won't be allowed to fail- I do quite a lot of work with the NHS in a non exec capacity (freebie, in case you should assail me), and can confirm the 'back office' is stuffed with money wasters.... obviously funding has to go up, as patient numbers and complexity and expense of treatment increase rapidly, but there is a lot of waste- and no hard impetus for change, they simply ignore the overspending. Its too much of a sacred cow to have the grown up debate- but I think the NHS needs taking out of political cycles, and overseen by competent people, who can take the key constituent parts with them (consultants to nurse and support staff- its a tough crowd). I agree they aspire to exceptional service in general, but I think its off tangent to what the core discussion was tbh.

Of course there will be good and bad; but I think being a state funded business that you know can't be allowed to fail leads to complacency (as you say, the enemy of the private business); I perhaps should have excluded specifically services that need to be provided by the state.

I've only ever worked privately myself. And there are plenty of wastes of money walking around at all levels. And typically the main driver isn't customers, growth, efficiency, but simply meeting performance targets such that management bonus payments are made, even if the actions taken to meet the targets are illogical and counter productive as part of the bigger picture.

You've not been to the right places and become too cynical. So I've worked in three example environments; private sector where growth and customer focus were king- brilliant, and everyone working in the same direction, with aligned objectives and so on; ex public sector gone private, which still bore the institutionalised scars of the public sector (performance management non existent, targets only related to internal metrics rather than serving the customer, slow moving decision making, cost cutting by buckshot (everyone get 10% say lopped off, rather than looking properly at say opportunity cost, union consultation and opposition at every step); and as a non-exec with public sector, where financial consequences were either ignored, outsourced through bad contracts, or parked under 'transformation' next year with 'lets get some consultants in to run another poorly specified procurement'. As you say, a mix of good and bad....but I know where the worst issues lay, and why. I guess you don't remember British Rail, but I was working with them as they went into privatisation.....and did they ever need it.

I went on British Rail as a kid, but no I don't remember it. I do recall reading much later just how much the Conservative government underfunded British Rail to make them a more attractive target for privitisation. It was something one of my profs at uni had spent a lot of time researching, though he was very much in favour of such entities being made private and extending market liberalisations, he wasn't close to researching with a view to bringing things back into a state fold.

I would add in addition to British Rail being underfunded I don't doubt there were many instances of bad management decision, poorly trained workers, absurd union practices.