Privatisation

[Zhivago]

Some things just really shouldn't be outsourced...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... utsourcing

[Digby]

That was for me a barking mad idea from the moment it was put forward. It's one area of Tory policy I really struggle with, that privatising is inherently better and more virtuous. In many areas I would support using private firms, but not all, and certainly not in forensic science.

[Mellsblue]

Yep. Even as a frothing at the mouth, fascist Tory I don’t see why.

[Sandydragon]

The only defence was the difficulty in retaining personnel. Private sector pays a hell of a lot more. Its always seemed made that government service can't make allowance for special skin less and market conditions, but the fact is they do that really badly, hence why specialists leave and why contractors are bought back in.

However, the solution isn't to abdicate all responsibility. A lack of consistent regulation and oversight is concerning.

[Digby]

The only defence was the difficulty in retaining personnel. Private sector pays a hell of a lot more. Its always seemed made that government service can't make allowance for special skin less and market conditions, but the fact is they do that really badly, hence why specialists leave and why contractors are bought back in.

However, the solution isn't to abdicate all responsibility. A lack of consistent regulation and oversight is concerning.

I used to date someone who worked in forensic science, and for serious graduate jobs the pay was pathetic, and I do mean seriously bad. And the crap pay, bad hours and over-flowing in trays meant she and most of her colleagues were seriously pissed off and frankly not doing their jobs properly, which also could have raised concerns about many a conviction attempt. Labour did nothing to address massive underfunding, and the Tories took their preferred model to pretend the problem was no longer the governments, neither approach was a good one

[Sandydragon]

The only defence was the difficulty in retaining personnel. Private sector pays a hell of a lot more. Its always seemed made that government service can't make allowance for special skin less and market conditions, but the fact is they do that really badly, hence why specialists leave and why contractors are bought back in.

However, the solution isn't to abdicate all responsibility. A lack of consistent regulation and oversight is concerning.

I used to date someone who worked in forensic science, and for serious graduate jobs the pay was pathetic, and I do mean seriously bad. And the crap pay, bad hours and over-flowing in trays meant she and most of her colleagues were seriously pissed off and frankly not doing their jobs properly, which also could have raised concerns about many a conviction attempt. Labour did nothing to address massive underfunding, and the Tories took their preferred model to pretend the problem was no longer the governments, neither approach was a good one

If they had paid forensics people the same as constables it would have been fine, but they were seen a civilian support staff and paid accordingly, i.e. badly.

[morepork]

Using private sector staff and facilities is fine, just regulate and oversee it. Looks like it was passed on down the line and bundled into touch like the English back line. If it is cost/benefit they are after, get a lawyer to run them through the compensation process. What fuckheads.

[Banquo]

Using private sector staff and facilities is fine, just regulate and oversee it. Looks like it was passed on down the line and bundled into touch like the English back line. If it is cost/benefit they are after, get a lawyer to run them through the compensation process. What fuckheads.

perzackly.

[Sandydragon]

Using private sector staff and facilities is fine, just regulate and oversee it. Looks like it was passed on down the line and bundled into touch like the English back line. If it is cost/benefit they are after, get a lawyer to run them through the compensation process. What fuckheads.

Yup. It’s fair to point out that state run organisations which are poorly regulated can perform equally badly.

[Mellsblue]

I would have to agree with the below from the institute for government. Forensics fails tests one and three, and two clearly didn’t happen:

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I ran the Army's compulsory drug testing programme for 2 years and the contract for testing and expert pharmacological opinion was re-let during my time in the chair. Both FSS and LGC (Formerly The Laboratory of the Government Chemist) were among the bidders for the contract. Both of these privatised companies operated in a highly competitive commercial field and standards were necessarily exemplary. I do not believe that privatisation in itself is the problem, indeed I would argue that when the volume of public work is insufficient to justify the retention of a dedicated capability privatisation becomes essential. There are significant benefits, too. Our testing programme benefitted from LGC's ongoing research, which was driven by the commercial sector and would have been beyond the reach of a publically funded facility.

Clearly there is risk in any forensic programme; the science is not infallible and the scientists even less so. This is why most programmes incorporate robust assurance measures - of course these are low-hanging fruit when it comes to trying to shave a few dollars off the costs in order to boost the shareholder's dividend. The answer is to ensure that the assurance programme is wholly independent of the thing it is assuring.

[morepork]

".....but cleanliness turned out to be so integral to the performance of hospitals..."

No shit.

[Stom]

I ran the Army's compulsory drug testing programme for 2 years and the contract for testing and expert pharmacological opinion was re-let during my time in the chair. Both FSS and LGC (Formerly The Laboratory of the Government Chemist) were among the bidders for the contract. Both of these privatised companies operated in a highly competitive commercial field and standards were necessarily exemplary. I do not believe that privatisation in itself is the problem, indeed I would argue that when the volume of public work is insufficient to justify the retention of a dedicated capability privatisation becomes essential. There are significant benefits, too. Our testing programme benefitted from LGC's ongoing research, which was driven by the commercial sector and would have been beyond the reach of a publically funded facility.

Clearly there is risk in any forensic programme; the science is not infallible and the scientists even less so. This is why most programmes incorporate robust assurance measures - of course these are low-hanging fruit when it comes to trying to shave a few dollars off the costs in order to boost the shareholder's dividend. The answer is to ensure that the assurance programme is wholly independent of the thing it is assuring.

But that's the nub. Privatising water, for instance, is a screw up because it's a guaranteed monopoly. Ditto the trains. It's all about striking a balance, and Mells' image from earlier is perfect.

[Mellsblue]

".....but cleanliness turned out to be so integral to the performance of hospitals..."

No shit.

I think the fact there was too much shit was the problem.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I ran the Army's compulsory drug testing programme for 2 years and the contract for testing and expert pharmacological opinion was re-let during my time in the chair. Both FSS and LGC (Formerly The Laboratory of the Government Chemist) were among the bidders for the contract. Both of these privatised companies operated in a highly competitive commercial field and standards were necessarily exemplary. I do not believe that privatisation in itself is the problem, indeed I would argue that when the volume of public work is insufficient to justify the retention of a dedicated capability privatisation becomes essential. There are significant benefits, too. Our testing programme benefitted from LGC's ongoing research, which was driven by the commercial sector and would have been beyond the reach of a publically funded facility.

Clearly there is risk in any forensic programme; the science is not infallible and the scientists even less so. This is why most programmes incorporate robust assurance measures - of course these are low-hanging fruit when it comes to trying to shave a few dollars off the costs in order to boost the shareholder's dividend. The answer is to ensure that the assurance programme is wholly independent of the thing it is assuring.

But that's the nub. Privatising water, for instance, is a screw up because it's a guaranteed monopoly. Ditto the trains. It's all about striking a balance, and Mells' image from earlier is perfect.

Sorry, Stom but I don't think you're comparing like for like using the water example. I think that any government has a public responsibility to guarantee the very basics of life and allowing someone to profit from the supply of water is a step too far. I don't agree with water charges and I don't agree with the privatisation of the industry.

However, privatising the railways did not introduce any more of a monopoly than already existed, since other forms of transport were and are available. What it did do is shift the onus for paying for the railways from the taxpayer to the user; and I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise the costs of the south of England getting to and from work in central London. By all of Mells measures (Market, measure and purpose/reputation), there is a clear case for privatisation of rail. If we were to nationalise railways, then we should also nationalise domestic air-travel and any other form of massed transport.

When you start to compare the cost of employing a cleaner on civil service TACOS with the cost of contracting cleaning out to a commercial enterprise, it soon becomes apparent why these services are privatised. I would have no problem with contracting out cleaning services in hospitals as long as there is sufficient rigour in quality control and appropriate penalties are in place should standards approach a reasonable warning level. Outsourcing of the cleaning contracts wasn't the mistake; ensuring adequate management of the contracts was.

[morepork]

There is outsourcing and then there is washing your hands of all responsibility. Putting Cleanerz R Us in charge of basic sanitation in a hospital and then just leaving them to it is not very clever.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

And of course they have also outsourced the washing of hands, with responsibility to do so now vested in an unsupervised wall-mounted hand-sanitiser dispenser.

[Digby]

And of course they have also outsourced the washing of hands, with responsibility to do so now vested in an unsupervised wall-mounted hand-sanitiser dispenser.

That they had to add something foul tasting to as initially the big drinkers in the hospital found they could add a decent amount of the hand sanitister to the coffee and get themselves nicely drunk

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Is the foul-tasting stuff they added to it even more foul-tasting than hospital coffee?

[Stones of granite]

Is the foul-tasting stuff they added to it even more foul-tasting than hospital coffee?

It's about the same..er, a friend told me.

[Digby]

Is the foul-tasting stuff they added to it even more foul-tasting than hospital coffee?

It's about the same..er, a friend told me.

When I spent a few days in hospital with a broken leg I drank coffee as they simply didn't do skimmed milk (why have the healthier option in hospital) and I don't like the flavour of milk, and I'd take bad dark coffee over bad dark tea. And actually for a short while the coffee wasn't too bad, it was almost childhood memory to drink stale instant coffee stirred into boiled water. It hadn't at the time occurred to me one could mix the hand cleanser into the coffee, that was a story I heard from a nurse a few years later, and at the time I wouldn't have tried for fear of breaking my leg again

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Back in 1981 I was on a TA exercise in Gibraltar. For 48 hours we took over the line from the Resident Infantry Battalion and had to man a quick reaction force and three observation towers on the border. As you can imagine this was a real thrill for a TA soldier, but the thrill lasted about 15-20 minutes. Thereafter it was the very definition of tedium and a 48-hour stag broken up into 4-on and 2-off tends to sit a little heavy on the eyelids.

Since no food or hot drinks were allowed in the observation towers, we were delighted to find that the over-aged ration packs that we had been issued contained sachets of instant coffee that had ceased to hold their powdered form and had taken on a gum-like consistency. The trick was to stick one of these coffee wads under your tongue and periodically activate it with a swig from the water-bottle. The 48-hour stag was fine, but not being able to kip for the next 72 was a bit of a misery.

Perhaps they should privatise Gibraltar?

[Mellsblue]

It’s getting like the old people’s home again. Banquo will telling us about the time his parents bought the first TV on the street if we’re not careful. “What’s that nurse? It’s time for my medicine?”

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Ah TV? There's a thing.

Now clear off laddie and let me count my legs in peace.

[Banquo]

It’s getting like the old people’s home again. Banquo will telling us about the time his parents bought the first TV on the street if we’re not careful. “What’s that nurse? It’s time for my medicine?”

cheeky young (?) c*nt. Now move, can't see the telly.