Anything Political

[DJ360 6,733]

13 hours ago, catfan said:

DJ360 I never said all the residents of Aspleh were crooks, Just a good few of them!

 

I'd say there are more..... and bigger crooks on the Tory benches in Westminster.

[DJ360 6,733]

On 1/14/2021 at 7:09 PM, Brew said:

Ignoring the political conspiracy bit DJ360 is right to think the comapany are well and truly extracting the urine and trying to screw the public purse for all they can, sadly there seems to be litttle to no checks or balance by the powers that be to monitor them.

 

It is no accident.  I am totally convinced that there is a move within Govt to limit the powers of Parliament and to limit freedoms and rights of individuals in many areas.  As I have repeatedly stated here.. it is there.. hidden in plain sight in the Tory Manifesto.  And I'm not talking about the alleged restriction of freedoms under lockdown.  That is just a part of this Govt.s amateurish and shambolic approach to dealing with Covid and in principle, is broadly correct, though in detail it is a mess.

 

Look here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/09/boris-johnson-britain-corruption-cronyism-checks-balances

[DJ360 6,733]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

Quite why you resent companies making profits is beyond me. The companies you mention get a lot of bad publicity, deservedly so in some instances, but make large profits. It may seem excessive but viewed in accounting terms their operating margin is less than 2.5% (Serco). Like the benefit cheats mentioned above we mostly only see the bad stuff.

 

Jim.. I emphatically do not resent companies in general making fair and legal profits. I have said many times here that I accept that we operate within a capitalist system.

 

What I resent is the ideology which drives Tory privatisation. I simply believe that there are better ways of doing things.  There were  better ways..

 

The modus operandii of current Tories is so damned transparent. Government  basically encourages private 'outsourcing' companies, no doubt with a quiet word here and a nod there... which frequently simply take over existing publicly funded functions..and even the staff...but seek to make profit by paying less, and often failing to deliver to contract.. Usually with no penalty.  Another common approach is for Govt. to effectively 're-design' the need and issue contracts to meet it.  Any sane person MUST question this approach.

 

What I outlined above is the destruction.. over that last few decades, of a whole sector of public service provision, wherein the perpetrators, mostly Tories have sought to privatise everything in sight, frequently with zero functional, economic or logical evidence to support their policies.

Private is (by some sort of miraculous osmosis) 'automatically more efficent/better'.. and yet the organisational and financial chicanery they have had to engage in to come up with a privatised rail service.. for e.g., is a joke.

 

I hesitate to raise the UK Career Guidance system.. and I will not be responding to the usual denigratory anecdotes... but I was there..when a very competent and highly qualified body of dedicated professionals were effectively forced into switching from a very wide ranging and all encompassing  service which helped every young person and many adults.. to a system which was purely an exercise in appearing to reduce youth unemployment. 

As I'm sure you know.. the UK now has gone from having a World Leading system of Career Guidance, to having, basically none.  And all for what? The Careers Service  used to represent less than 1% of the education budget and was tremendous value for money.  Far more is now spent on second rate fire fighting of youth employment issues...  but somebody is getting rich... So it's OK.

 

The Tories have spread that approach, so that , for e.g., Trading Standards, Environmental Health and numerous other functions which used to exist within Local Govt... are now either a shadow of their former selves, or gone completely.  And all of those university educated people are dumped..and they are not paying taxes.

 

It stinks.

 

 

 

[Brew 5,423]

You said direct labour is not the alternative to contractors and there is a 'better' way. To me you then expand your hypothesis by describing the ultimate direct labour system - nationalisation

 

You have mentioned time and again companies making billions along with the word ‘obscene’. What do you judge to be a ‘fair’ profit?

 

The modus operandii of current Tories is so damned transparent.

 

So much so most can’t see it, we only see an unproven conspiracy theory perpetuated by devotees of the hard left ‘tear it down and build it in our image’ doctrine  – it’s akin to the famous £350 million a week claim. The only evidence offered in support is from the ‘whataboutery’ brigade.

With regard to contracts it's true some things are ‘ring-fenced’ but, as you note, that's hardly a Tory exclusive.

Transparent? the maxim ‘seek and ye shall find’ seems appropriate. 

 

I really don’t think you are so naïve to think the nod and wink system only applies to Tories, It’s endemic at all levels of business and government both local and national. As for penalties, in law it's a very difficult thing to put in a contract and are often unenforceable.

 

 the organisational and financial chicanery they have had to engage in to come up with a privatised rail service.. for e.g., is a joke.   Explain?

 

I have only a negative experience of the careers service so we’ll leave it there.

 

I do however have extensive experience of the motor, coal, steel, electricity and docks - efficient is not the first adjective that springs to mind.

I’m not going into detail, we’ve been there before and it will turn into an anti-union diatribe.

 

Finally, the Trading Standards, Environmental Health are alive and well and still not privatised - at least in Notts.

 

 

[catfan 14,793]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

I'd say there are more..... and bigger crooks on the Tory benches in Westminster.

And Labour too.

[nonnaB 4,900]

More about food for the needy. I had forgotten in times of crisis our village does what they call " Spesa sospesa" which means shopping waiting more or less with " We cannot change the world but everyone of us can change the life of someone" When shopping for yourself buy extra and pay for it but leave the products in the store to be used by the needy. It's also popular in the bars ( which at the moment are closed) when you go to the bar and have your whatever then pay for your friend or acquaintance that has already has his coffee etc, so,next time his coffee etc is paid for and he usually does the same for other people. I think it's a lovely idea and we've done it several times and have been pleasantly surprised in being the recipients.

 

[DJ360 6,733]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

You said direct labour is not the alternative to contractors and there is a 'better' way. To me you then expand your hypothesis by describing the ultimate direct labour system - nationalisation

 

No.  I do agree that rail should be re-nationalised.  It is a mess.  I also think there's a case for nationalising energy supply. 

But what I'm mostly talking about is those functions formerly delivered via Local Govt. I don't think you can describe Local Govt. as 'Nationalisation. You know full well that the Tories hate Local Govt. except as a 'dumping ground' for those issues they are reluctant to tackle.. such as Housing, Youth Employment, Youth Services in General and.. most notably 'Adult Social Care'  They cannot or will not deal with it, so they throw it into the lap of Local Govt... cut Local Govt. funding and then blame Local Govt. when it all goes pear shaped.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

You have mentioned time and again companies making billions along with the word ‘obscene’. What do you judge to be a ‘fair’ profit?

 

I have? Where did you dig that up from?  My memory must be failing. I said what I meant and vice versa. I have no problem with fair and legal profits, but I will expand the definition to include the caveat that profits are not made from poverty wages or tax evasion.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

 (Quoting Col) 'The modus operandii of current Tories is so damned transparent.'

 

So much so most can’t see it, we only see an unproven conspiracy theory perpetuated by devotees of the hard left ‘tear it down and build it in our image’ doctrine 

 

Oh come on Jim.. you know full well that 'yer average' UK voter has no clue about this stuff and is told how to vote by whatever rag they buy. Usually the Mail or the Sun.  More to the point.. there is nothing 'hard left' about calling out the theft and corruption in the current Tory Party... and no such call as 'build in our image'  Who's engaging in hyperbole now?  It's just honest democratically minded people reacting to something very dirty operating in our midst. 

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

it’s akin to the famous £350 million a week claim. The only evidence offered in support is from the ‘whataboutery’ brigade.

 

I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

I really don’t think you are so naïve to think the nod and wink system only applies to Tories, It’s endemic at all levels of business and government both local and national. As for penalties, in law it's a very difficult thing to put in a contract and are often unenforceable.

 

No.  I'm not.. but it's a number's game. We all have to choose who to vote for based on our own principles.. then we look for a party which has policies and principles which most closely match our own.  That's 'Representative Democracy' for you. So far I have never felt able to vote Tory in my lifetime and it is not looking too promising for them in the future either.  I am no Blairite, but apart from the Gulf War fiasco. he was mostly pretty benign in the scheme of things.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

 the organisational and financial chicanery they have had to engage in to come up with a privatised rail service.. for e.g., is a joke.   Explain?

 

Basically, exactly what I said.  We've had to watch as a number of 'regional' companies compete with each other..sort of... on a track system owned by another company.. etc.. etc.. We've also seen for e.g. Eastern. staying public and making a profit.. so then promptly privatised.  A perfect example of 'privatise profits/nationalise losses'. 

Meanwhile we are buying rollingstock/locomotives from abroad

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

I do however have extensive experience of the motor, coal, steel, electricity and docks - efficient is not the first adjective that springs to mind.

I’m not going into detail, we’ve been there before and it will turn into an anti-union diatribe.

 

 

But here is the key of our debate. You will no doubt quote overmanning, restrictive practices etc.. And I won't deny that in purely accounting/bottom line terms, some of those issues existed.

 

But ask yourself this: 

 

How much has the closure of UK industry and manufacturing saved.... in terms of Public Spending?

How much has it damaged/ improved employment?

What has it done to the 'Tax Take'?

How much has it damaged/improved anything resembling high quality education and training?

What has it done to the structure, education level and earning capacity of the UK workforce?

How much closer are we to becoming a 'Third World Country'?

 

Was it worth it?.  All those cuts? All that strife?

 

From my perspective.. the answer is a resounding 'NO!!!'

 

We have slashed and burned.. but we have planted nothing new.

 

19th C here we come.

 

 

[Brew 5,423]

I’ll allow taking energy back with the proviso there is some form of governance that provides a stimulus to drive it forward. The problem with nationalised companies is management grows fat and lazy.

Depsite your assurances to the contrary I have no knowledge of Tory hatred of social functions or of them dumping on councils. What I do know is that councils have for years demanded greater control which, when it's given, promptly make a mess of it then scream it’s the government s fault.

My memory must be failing too; I can’t remember when you made reference to obscene profits so we’ll strike it from the record. Apologies.

Perhaps I’m confusing the times you have intimated the profits made by companies paid from the public purse are theft.

Voters:

Oh come on Jim.. you know full well that 'yer average' UK voter has no clue about this stuff and is told how to vote by whatever rag they buy. Usually the Mail or the Sun.

Sorry Col but fundamentally disagree. I may be opinionated, I may at times be stroppy and impatient but I’m not so arrogant I judge the average voter incapable of making their own mind up.  Yes there is some influence by the media, but that applies to everyone.

It’s akin to the famous £350 million a week claim. The only evidence offered in support is from the ‘whataboutery’ brigade.

 

I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

 

 

You won’t of you take it out of context.  The point is both the £350M a week and the conspiracy theories are  in and of themselves lies

Still not sure etc etc explains the financial and organisational chicanery.

 

Your questions:

But ask yourself this: 

How much has the closure of UK industry and manufacturing saved.... in terms of Public Spending?

Quite a bit if you count the subsidies to the docks, mines, steel, rail, ship and motor industries among others

 

The following questions can’t answered except by those who make ill informed guesses and suppositions.

How much has it damaged/ improved employment?

What has it done to the 'Tax Take'?

How much has it damaged/improved anything resembling high quality education and training?

What has it done to the structure, education level and earning capacity of the UK workforce?

How much closer are we to becoming a 'Third World Country'?

 

We can of course look back and compare but we can't attribute any change to one factor and certainly not to some long gone industry collapse.

.

 

 

 

 

[letsavagoo 964]

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

Oh come on Jim.. you know full well that 'yer average' UK voter has no clue about this stuff and is told how to vote by whatever rag they buy. Usually the Mail or the Sun. 

What an unbelievably arrogant and patronising statement to make. Some people yes but ‘the average UK voter, merely vote how they’re told to by the press’ 
I think people are smarter than you give them credit. It doesn’t make you stupid if they don’t agree with what your views are Col.

[alan s 156]

@DJ360loves a good sneer at those whos political views don't align with his,

 

On 9/27/2019 at 2:10 PM, DJ360 said:

split over Brexit, they only seem able to find those who 'Fink it's abart time Parlimunt stopped blockin' Brexit.. so we can get ahht an' stop ver EU from bossin' us abaahht'..innit'.

[DJ360 6,733]

16 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

What an unbelievably arrogant and patronising statement to make. Some people yes but ‘the average UK voter, merely vote how they’re told to by the press’ 
I think people are smarter than you give them credit. It doesn’t make you stupid if they don’t agree with what your views are Col.

 

OK. Hands up.. it was lazy and crass of me to put it that way.

 

I apologise.  I was not trying to impune the inteligence of the UK electorate. That would be silly, as clearly all levels of intelligence.. however you wish to measure it.. are represented in the electorate.

What I was trying to say was that many people do not take much interest in politics and do not seek to inform themselves of what is going on until voting time comes around. And even then.. many people just seem to go on what they read in the 'popular' press.  I know many people who still do not understand the truth about immigration or the difference between EU employed migrant workers, illegal immigrants and immigrants from outside the EU.  I know many people who still believe that 50 Million Turks are queueing up to come here. I still know many who are convinced that we cannot make out own laws and that they are all made by the EU.  I could go on but I think my point is made. Such people are entitled to want Brexit. but it annoys the hell out of me that they can't even understand the basics.

 

Finally.. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I would prefer it if they used evidence and sound argument..as Brew (mostly) does.. to disagree.

[DJ360 6,733]

13 hours ago, alan s said:

@DJ360loves a good sneer at those whos political views don't align with his,

 

 

You have taken that quote entirely out of context and I will not apologise for it.  If anything, you should apologise, for attempting to distort my words.  The words you quoted, were my quote, of the sort of people the BBC kept finding when looking for 'Vox Pops' to push out on their news. 

 

They were not my opinions of the UK electorate, but of BBC reporting.. Here is my original post.. in full.  It was in response to a comment by Loppylugs.

 

Quote

Posted September 27, 2019

Some truth in that LL.  I'm personally getting sick of the way the BBC keeps doing 'vox pop' interviews to accompany lunchtime and evening news.  And yet, despite the almost 50/50% split over Brexit, they only seem able to find those who 'Fink it's abart time Parlimunt stopped blockin' Brexit.. so we can get ahht an' stop ver EU from bossin' us abaahht'..innit'.

 

The view that the EU is 'bossin' us abaht', is never challenged and neither is the idea that Parliament is 'blocking' Brexit.  Which it isn't.

 

That unnutterably dishonest scheming ""$*&++ Dominic Cummings was confronted in the corridors of Parliament yesterday, about the extreme language which his mouthpiece Johnson has employed in the house.  Cumming..who looked frankly scared and uncomfortable, responded' "Well get Brexit done then".  Cummings seems oblivious to the fact that it is his co-conspiratorJohnson who led the Brexit campaign, who said it would be easy, who said the EU would be begging for us to make a deal wiith them..etc.  Also Johnson who was recently elected by his party on a promise that he would 'Get Brexit done', yet he has done nothing and he is making no effort to achieve a 'deal' with the EU.  He is a crook.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I want neither a general election nor a Labour Govt. at present.  I want to see Doris Johnson and his whole right wing elitist crew get their Brexit and then take responsibility for the shambles, chaos and economic ruin which will follow.  I don't want them to have the opportunity to blame the 'post Brexit' mess on Labour. 

Tories made this mess.  Up to them to 'own' it.

 

The point I was making was that it seemed to me the BBC was only finding inarticulate and ill-informed 'Brexiteers'.. and was barely featuring 'remainers' at all.

Rather different to the impression of me you tried to portray don't you think?

[DJ360 6,733]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

The problem with nationalised companies is management grows fat and lazy.

You say that.  It is, to use your favourite word 'hyperbole' and cannot be proven. It is no doubt true in some cases, but not in others. It is.. a myth.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

Depsite your assurances to the contrary I have no knowledge of Tory hatred of social functions or of them dumping on councils. What I do know is that councils have for years demanded greater control which, when it's given, promptly make a mess of it then scream it’s the government s fault.

 

I emphatically did not say that the Tories hate 'social functions'. I said they 'dumped them' onto Local Govt. This is true.  The fact that the Tories 'dumped' Youth Unemployment back into the hands of Local Authorities after Gove de-funded the remains of the Careers/Connexions service is a matter of Public record and is undeniable.

 

Housing is part of Local Govt, as is Adult Social Care and a number of other functions. If the Tory Govt. is so convinced that Local Govt. cannot properly manage these functions.. why do they not do as they have done with many other Local Govt. functions and force their disposal or Privatisation?  Simple.. because they would far sooner leave it with Local Govt and blame Local Govt. for any failure. And also.. it is difficult for the likes of Serco, Crapita etc. to make money out of them. Theyare a cost..with little or no profit.  Tories have cut LA funding year on year.. yet when any single Local Govt. function is short of cash, the Tories simply say that they have provided enough cash and Local Govt has not spent it wisely.  The truth is that they have not provided enough cash and thus Local Govt cannot ever 'square the circle'.

 

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

My memory must be failing too; I can’t remember when you made reference to obscene profits so we’ll strike it from the record. Apologies.

 

Perhaps I’m confusing the times you have intimated the profits made by companies paid from the public purse are theft.

 

Jim. I may well have referred to 'obscene profits'.. but not necessarily in respect of publicly funded companies.

 

As for profits made by publicly funded companies.  I think I've been very clear. There is a long tradition of established companies supplying armaments, infrastructure projects etc.  Although there have been scandals (Westland?).. I'm generally OK with such companies.  What I object to are 'All Purpose Outsourcing Companies' such as Serco, Crapita, Carillion et. al... which have NO EXPERTISE WHATEVER. These are clearly an integral part of the Tory drive to privatise public spending.  They are clearly set up with the express intention of 'hoovering up' Govt contracts.... any Govt contracts.. and then attempting to deliver on them often using existing staff and trying to push down costs to squeeze out profits.  Such companies are repeatedly proven to be incompetent and the actual saving to the public purse is minimal..while services suffer, jobs are lost, wages fall and money disappears into a black hole.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

Voters:

 

I've dealt with that.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

You won’t of you take it out of context.  The point is both the £350M a week and the conspiracy theories are  in and of themselves lies

 

The 350 million is certainly a lie.  Even the Brexit mob admitted that. But you simply cannot say that about the Tory intentions to weaken Parliament, and to weaken citizen's rights and workers rights after Brexit. I''ll come back to that tomorrow.

[Brew 5,423]

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It is no doubt true in some cases, but not in others. It is.. a myth.

 

I cannot prove it Col any more than you can prove it a myth but with almost 20 years working in and around those industries I stand by my statement.

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I said they 'dumped them' onto Local Govt. This is true.  The fact that the Tories 'dumped' Youth Unemployment back into the hands of Local Authorities after Gove de-funded the remains of the Careers/Connexions service is a matter of Public record and is undeniable.

 

I realise the careers service is a hobby horse for you and a sore point so I'll try to tread carefully.

 

The National Careers Service is at present funded and managed by the Skills funding agency in partnership with the Dept, of Business not local authorities.

 

John Major privatised what was in essence a Quango and in the following years the service enjoyed what some consider its 'golden era'

 

Quotes from  Paul Chubb, a CEG professional with 40 years’ experience:

my experience is that ‘privatising’ the former LEA careers service in 1994 turned out to be the closest we got to a ‘golden era’.

 

There is much more but then -

 

Sadly the dedicated funding for CEG quality developments in schools did not survive for long after the 1997 Election, the intervention of the SEU and the creation of Connexions. (Labour)

Ultimately Connexions became unloved by Labour’s own Ministers, as if they had played no part in undermining its ability universally to deliver professional careers services as well as its targeted support services. Labour rewrote its own history, blaming Connexions when it was their design (and their anti-careers guidance prejudices) which had undermined the ability of Connexions consistently to deliver.   (My highlighting)

 

I'll not further labour the point other than to say Labour, the Tories and the coalition all stirred the pot and we cannot attribute all the blame for any problems to one party.

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Tories simply say that they have provided enough cash and Local Govt has not spent it wisely.  The truth is that they have not provided enough cash and thus Local Govt cannot ever 'square the circle'.

 

This is debatable. What qualifies councillors to run multi million pound budgets? Whose bright idea was it to use public money to fund an energy company, a heat and power company, a tram system and other council owned private companies- all serious loss makers?

If Serco and co have no expertise what makes the council able to do what they can't?

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

They are clearly set up with the express intention of 'hoovering up' Govt contracts.... any Govt contracts

 

A less hysterical way of saying that is they are set up to service the needs of the government, it is after all their raison d'etre. Do they make profits? Wouldn't be much point doing it if they didn't. Do they push down costs to increase those profits? yes, and so does every other company that wants to stay in business.

They have had some dificulties and made mistakes, true enough. There has even been cases of criminal activity but given the size of the workforce it's almost  a 'given' that such things happen. It cannot be said they are incompetent however, they're simply too successful.

 

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

I cannot prove it Col any more than you can prove it a myth but with almost 20 years working in and around those industries I stand by my statement.

 

I also worked in nationalised industry, most notably the NCB, and saw no particular waste.  The whole drive with coal was to increase output and efficiency.  Record coal outputs from particular collieries were something of a point of pride as I recall.

Even if there was an element of what might be described as 'overmanning', I'd argue that this brought about levels of decent employment, decent welfare proper training etc.. which has a national value above and beyond the crude 'bottom line'.

I also worked for a heavily subsidised private company.. viz. Courtaulds, at their 'Northern Weaving Division' in Skelmersdale, Lancs... for four years. I worked both as a Weaver.. and also a mechanic on the spendidly named Schlafhorst Autoconer.  In that place, it seemed that waste was endemic. The company effectively 'blackmailed' Govt. by demanding subsidy in order to stay open and finally closed down by deliberately picking fights with the workers until we eventually decided to go on strike and 'hang the consequences'.  The coonsequences were entirely predictable and we all ended up out of work..yet strangely relieved..as the place had had closure hanging over it almost since it opened in the late 1960s.

 

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

I realise the careers service is a hobby horse for you and a sore point so I'll try to tread carefully.

 

The National Careers Service is at present funded and managed by the Skills funding agency in partnership with the Dept, of Business not local authorities.

 

You've done some interesting research there... but it is a bit one sided.

 

Quote

The National Careers Service is at present funded and managed by the Skills funding agency in partnership with the Dept, of Business not local authorities.

 

I know this. As far as I am aware, Local Authorities have never funded Careers Services.  However, they were operated  as part of Local Authority Education Depts from 1972 when Nat Govt. changed the permissive powers for LAs to operate a Careers Service, (or leave it to the Employment Service) into a mandate to provide one.

 

The 'National Careers Service' was not introduced until much later.  It is a red herring of epic proportions and bears little or no resemblance to what it fails to replace.  It was basically a half baked replacement for Connexions, but with extremely limited scope and severely restricted access for young people. Even the minister who got the short straw of launching it did so at some ungodly hour in the morning, showed no interest and took no questions.  I'm sure I've explained all of this before. I could go into detail.. but maybe later.. not here.

 

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

John Major privatised what was in essence a Quango and in the following years the service enjoyed what some consider its 'golden era'

 

Quotes from  Paul Chubb, a CEG professional with 40 years’ experience:

my experience is that ‘privatising’ the former LEA careers service in 1994 turned out to be the closest we got to a ‘golden era’.

 

 

I remember it well. I think Quango is a bit strong, because all Careers Services at that time were a part of LEA's, but LEA's with any 'nous' did no more than keep a watching brief on them because the whole point was that they were about providing Guidance which was independent of schools, employers etc.

I also remember Paul Chubb (by reputation) who was I think the 'PCO'/ Principal Careers Officer' of a midlands Careers Service and sometime President of the Institute of Careers Officers..later the Institute of Careers Guidance. 

The reason I'm only replying now, is because I wanted to consult a couple of former colleagues to check my recall of events. Sadly, the former Principal Officer of my service was unavailable today. He is also a former President of the ICO/ICG and after I consulted two of his three deputies today, I was left in little doubt that none of them regarded 1994-2000 as a 'Golden Era'.  The Golden Era was, if anything, 1972-1994, when we had a close but not stifling relationship with our LEA, as well as very strong and mutually respectful relationships with schools, Colleges, Universities, Employers and Govt Depts. such as Job Centre, Manpower Services Commission etc.  All that Major's Privatisation did was force most Careers Services into effectively 'bidding for their own jobs'. We became a Company Limited by Guarantee. St Helens Career Services Ltd. as I recall.  Most were successful, but one or two went into the ownership of private education companies. I recall that Stockport did that.. but can't for the life of me recall the name of the company.  Eitherway.. it didn't end well.

 

The funding remained unchanged as I recall.. except that we were obliged to provide proof of our activities via the production of an 'Action Plan' for each client we saw. The 'Action Plan' was in effect no different to the previous 'Summary of Guidance' which we had done forever, except that each now carried a cash value and therefore a convenient audit trail.  So.. in addition to doing our job..we also had to be careful to maintain a great paper library of stored Action Plans.. each with its unique Identifying No.  At regular intervals a team of 'auditors' would descend upon us and demand to see a representative sample of the Action Plans for which we had claimed funding.  Naturally.. there would occasionally be one or two which had become misfiled, or were sitting under paper on someone's desk. (This is before we had fully computerised client record systems)  One time..an auditor asked me to come up with a single one.  I replied jokingly that it must be the one we had fabricated to pay for the office tea bags.. or some such harmless quip.  He wasn't amused.  I wasn't bothered. The whole approach was ludicrous.  You talk about bloat and bureaucracy in Nationalised Industry.. I'll point you to the same thing imposed by privatisers.

I'd say .. for the sake of balance, that Paul Chubb's view may not have been the majority view. One Assistant Principal PCO I spoke to today was, for some years, in regular contact with PCOs or ex PCOs from Bury, Oldham, St Helens, Blackpool, Wigan, Preston and a few other services. I'd sooner listen to him.

 

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

Sadly the dedicated funding for CEG quality developments in schools did not survive for long after the 1997 Election, the intervention of the SEU and the creation of Connexions. (Labour)

 

I remember that too.  As I recall, Careers Services led on a programme to improve the quality of Careers Work actually done in schools by school staff.  This a was a sort of Kite Marking process in which they got Brownie Points for managing decent, up to date Careers Libraries etc.  To understand the value of this you have to understand that with a very few honourable exceptions, most school 'Careers' posts were effectively sinecures.... just a good way of throwing a bit of an allowance at a teacher.

 

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

Ultimately Connexions became unloved by Labour’s own Ministers, as if they had played no part in undermining its ability universally to deliver professional careers services as well as its targeted support services. Labour rewrote its own history, blaming Connexions when it was their design (and their anti-careers guidance prejudices) which had undermined the ability of Connexions consistently to deliver.   (My highlighting)

 

You rather 'skipped over' the introduction of Connexions.  However. I have made clear many times here that I was utterly opposed to it as an approach...from a Professional P.O.V. Yes.. it was Labour.. notably Blunkett.. who introduced it.  Massive funding, huge expansion, but a mess of epic proportions.  Suddenly Youth Workers and Social Workers knew more about Careers than Careers Advisers..and Careers Advisers were expected to advise on Offending Behaviour, Sexual Health, Substance Abuse etc.  Careers Advice was a 'dirty phrase', and we were all suddenly 'down with the kids'.  It was embarrassing, false, and hugely counterproductive.  I bloody hated it.  I was prevented from delivering proper Career Guidance in school and the only thing that mattered was  'NEET'. Again.. I could write a book...

The final insult was when Milburn produced a report into 'Equality of Opportunity' or somesuch, in which he blamed Careers Advisers for what was in effect a hugely misguided policy of his own Govt., ingrained inequality in the education system etc.  He lied, and he used exceptionally dubious stats.  He was carving out a role for himself which lasted maybe a year or so.  Where is he now?  I told the bloke in no uncertain terms what I thought of him.

But they didn't privatise.

 

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

I'll not further labour the point other than to say Labour, the Tories and the coalition all stirred the pot and we cannot attribute all the blame for any problems to one party.

 

Well..as I've always said... 'everybody is a bloody Careers Adviser'.. except those who are qualified to be so.

 

We can blame Gove and the Tories for the almost total absence of credible Careers Advice in Schools now.  He said it, and he did it. He was the one who withdrew funding, told schools to do it themselves, and actively prevented even Careers Education in the Curriculum. The word I want to use for him would breach the AUP.

 

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

This is debatable. What qualifies councillors to run multi million pound budgets? Whose bright idea was it to use public money to fund an energy company, a heat and power company, a tram system and other council owned private companies- all serious loss makers?

If Serco and co have no expertise what makes the council able to do what they can't?

 

Councillors do not run anything.  That is where 'Militant' got it so wrong.  Councillors may set priorities etc.,, blah. but they cannot run anything without appointing competent Officers with the requisite skills and qualifications to deliver.

( There is an obvious parallel here, with that arse Cummings' approach to the Civil Service.but that is another story ) 

Again.. it is very difficult to quantify profit and loss in terms of things such as public transport, because, as you well know.. they contribute to the general economic efficiency of a system, though they may not show an actual operating profit. Nottingham CCs Bus Service is superb from a 'punter's POV, though I know nothing about it's finances. The Trams?  I don't know.

 

Clearly, in the past it made sense to run Electricity, Gas etc.. locally.  Equally clearly, that's no longer the best way.. but it does not follow that this proves that all services should be centralised.. much less privatised.

 

I repeat that Serco etc., have no expertise.  They 'buy in' expertise in whatever function they have contracted to deliver. Often the existing expertise... which they mis-manage.  I've already told you how they f****d up the personnel/salaries function of a whole Merseyside NHS Trust which ended up being brought back in house.

 

On 1/18/2021 at 2:48 PM, Brew said:

A less hysterical way of saying that is they are set up to service the needs of the government, it is after all their raison d'etre. Do they make profits? Wouldn't be much point doing it if they didn't. Do they push down costs to increase those profits? yes, and so does every other company that wants to stay in business.

They have had some dificulties and made mistakes, true enough. There has even been cases of criminal activity but given the size of the workforce it's almost  a 'given' that such things happen. It cannot be said they are incompetent however, they're simply too successful.

 

Govt does not have 'needs'. Govt is not a being.. it is a function.  Govt. has policies, which ought to, but often do not, seek to meet the needs of the entire populace, or segments thereof.

Profits are entirely permissible if the contract has been met., but they are morally indefensible if they derive from servicing a contract which patently does not meet the needs which it is alleged to meet.

Pushing down cost via efficiency. (including efficiency of management) is acceptable. Pushing down costs by employing cheap underqualified incompetent staff, or by redeploying competent staff on lower salaries, or by re-defining the task to suit the contract, rather than the public need.. are all very dubious tactics.. but are all common practice amongst 'outsourcers.' 

They are successful because they serve a corrupt master.

[Brew 5,423]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Even if there was an element of what might be described as 'overmanning', I'd argue that this brought about levels of decent employment, decent welfare proper training etc.. which has a national value above and beyond the crude 'bottom line'.

 

You missed your vocation Col, you should have been a spin doctor! There wasn't an 'element' there was rampant over manning, the  NCB and docks being by far the worst offenders.

The Courtaulds tale is irrelevant, I did not claim that bad management was the sole prerogative of the nationalised industries,

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You've done some interesting research there... but it is a bit one sided

 

Pot! Kettle!

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You rather 'skipped over' the introduction of Connexions.

 

Yes I did say there was more but I try to make my point and be as succinct as I can be. I thought you might say I was Labouring the point, it was introduced in 2000.

You offered a fuller historical view from your side and I found it quite interesting but it skirted the points raised.

 

Chub says the 'golden era' was post privatisation, you and your colleagues say it was, if at all, much earlier. What you are saying in essence is that the service was going downhill for years before and under both Labour and Tory governments.

You may have been opposed to Connexions but that is hardly the point, you were and still are holding the view, or at least that's the impression you give, the Tories are to blame for the ruination of a high class careers advisory service - clearly they're not, even taking into account the actions of the Labour turncoat Gove.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Councillors do not run anything. 

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

they cannot run anything without appointing competent Officers with the requisite skills

 

OK but you then say-

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I repeat that Serco etc., have no expertise.  They 'buy in' expertise in whatever function they have contracted to deliver.

 

 I'm at a loss seeing the difference between appointing a competent officers and buying expertise when needed.

 

Nottingham came up with an electricity supply company, it failed. The Eastcroft heat and power was hugely expensive to users, who have no other choice, and needs £300 million of investment over the next 30 years. The tram serves a limited customer base and  last I looked was losing close to a million a WEEK, the figures may be different now.

 

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Govt does not have 'needs'. Govt is not a being.. it is a function.  Govt. has policies, which ought to, but often do not, seek to meet the needs of the entire populace, or segments thereof.

Profits are entirely permissible if the contract has been met., but they are morally indefensible if they derive from servicing a contract which patently does not meet the needs which it is alleged to meet.

 

 

Being pedantic that's a contradiction. They can't meet the needs if there are none.

 

Is it still defensible for 'competent officers' to draw their fat salaries whilst running projects at such a loss?

 

Government is not a being but it is a legal entity in it's own right like a business and you are well aware of the phrase 'business need' and what it means.

 

Of course they define the task to suit, the public need is met by fulfilling the terms of the contract, how else would you do it? If technology makes a job simpler, easier and cheaper then there are redundancies. No one deliberately employs incompetent staff, they may turn out to be so but that not the same.

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

Tomorrow Jim....  It's been a long day..

[DJ360 6,733]

Meanwhile....

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-tory-donor-lord-ashcrofts-outsourcing-firm-given-350m-vaccination-contract/?utm_source=tw

[Brew 5,423]

Not too sure how it ties with out latest conversation, just another swipe at what you consider the criminal Tory contract system.

 

The site however is less than neutral and I'm amazed that someone who sets great store by unbiased reporting should offer an article from a site that names Corbyn as the last of the true believers and calls for the 'comrades of the world to unite'.

I don't think they are going to have good word to say about the Tories anytime soon do you?

 

In unprecedented times we need unprecedented action. I can imagine the scorn poured on the government if they said 'we can't start vaccinating until all the tenders are in and checked and approved and the shareholders and the management pass an impartiality review and granted and...

Given the task of injecting 130 million times - who would you say has the organisation to do it?

 

If they are contracted for only a portion of the population it equates to about 10 quid per and for that they have to pay staff, premises, power, admin, ppe etc etc... but hey lets all scream lucrative, cronyism, incompetence, waste...

 

I know of the openDemocracy site, it's a Trotskyite mouthpiece and as far left as you can go. There nothing fair or balanced about it and panders to those who.... well you can fill in the rest.

 

[DJ360 6,733]

On 1/20/2021 at 4:24 AM, Brew said:

You missed your vocation Col, you should have been a spin doctor! There wasn't an 'element' there was rampant over manning, the  NCB and docks being by far the worst offenders.

 

Even if I accept that.. you fail to acknowledge or dismis my point that there can be economic benefits just in employing people.  It's all a bit Keynesian.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 4:24 AM, Brew said:

Chub says the 'golden era' was post privatisation, you and your colleagues say it was, if at all, much earlier. What you are saying in essence is that the service was going downhill for years before and under both Labour and Tory governments.

 

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  I'm mystified. and I didn't say 'much earlier'. What existed prior to Privatisation.. worked. Privatisation was a clumsy political device which barely changed service delivery or funding.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 4:24 AM, Brew said:

You may have been opposed to Connexions but that is hardly the point, you were and still are holding the view, or at least that's the impression you give, the Tories are to blame for the ruination of a high class careers advisory service - clearly they're not, even taking into account the actions of the Labour turncoat Gove.

 

Most of the qualified staff from prior to Connexions were still around.  The Guidance expertise remained. All that was needed was to return to something like a pre 2000 scenario. This also gave an opportuntiy to fix any REAL problems which existed.. but Gove did none of that. Being the self satisfied smug idiot that he is.. he thought he knew it all...and it was he, who effectively scrapped Career Guidance in the UK.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 4:24 AM, Brew said:

 I'm at a loss seeing the difference between appointing a competent officers and buying expertise when needed.

 

It is a matter of expertise and continuity. When I qualified, I was still 'green'. I was able to function effectively via my training.. but also via the group expertise, developed over decades..of my fellow advisers. Later.. I was able to pass on some of my skill and expertise to others.

Serco et.al seem to think that such stuff is just a commodity, which can be bought off the shelf and used for as long as needed. then disposed of.  Certainly, if you limit the scope and ambition of a contract.. that approach can work.. but it is shoddy, unfulfilling and ultimately counter productive. Not everything can be reduced to a simple business proposition.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 4:24 AM, Brew said:

Of course they define the task to suit, the public need is met by fulfilling the terms of the contract, how else would you do it? If technology makes a job simpler, easier and cheaper then there are redundancies. No one deliberately employs incompetent staff, they may turn out to be so but that not the same.

 

No.. no ..no..!!! You are entirely missing the point.  As I said, after the mid 90s both Labour and the Tories reduced Career Guidance to some crude notion of 'getting kids into jobs.. any jobs'. That is absolutely not what Career Guidance is about...and any system which reduces it to that.. however cheap.. is not value for money.

[DJ360 6,733]

P.S. Interestingly, today the Tory Dept for Education announced a huge expansion of Further Education Colleges.  Apparently in a bid to get young people to look elsewhere than Uni for Training and Education opportunities.  Just for now I'll leave aside the many, many questions which need answering about the detail.. and simply mention that it was Gove who shut down FE from 2010..

You couldn't make it up.

[DJ360 6,733]

23 hours ago, Brew said:

Not too sure how it ties with out latest conversation, just another swipe at what you consider the criminal Tory contract system.

 

I do consider it to be so.. and I really don't think it matters whether it is pointed out by raging Trots, or more mainstream left of centre folk.

 

The deal seems always to be.. 'You give us a few hundred grand of your cash for our Tory Funds. and we'll give you a few hundred million of other people's money in return.'.

 

It is bent..and you will never convince me otherwise.

[Brew 5,423]

55 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

you fail to acknowledge or dismis my point that there can be economic benefits just in employing people.  It's all a bit Keynesian.

 

You're describing a situatation that simply can't be sustained. It may be benificial to the people involved but paying for someone to do nothing is a financial millstone. You recently had a problem with your boiler and one plumber fixed it, how would you feel if he brought 4 assistants who also wanted paying?

 

59 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  I'm mystified. and I didn't say 'much earlier'.

 

I reported Chubs view that the golden era was post privatisation, you, or those you consulted claimed 1972 ish. some 20 odd years before the service was sold off making it much earlier in my view.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Privatisation was a clumsy political device which barely changed service delivery or funding.

But according to Chub (as quoted), it not only worked, it worked well so the above is simply an opinion based on your political bias.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

It is a matter of expertise and continuity.

 

 

Smoke and mirrors Col.  One of the benefits of privatisation rather than jobs for life nationalisation is the ability to hire in expertise for the length of the contract and then let them move on.

Like it or not people are assets, not for nothing are they called 'human resources'. We are a resource and hold our jobs by completing the task we are paid to do.  Again like it or not everything IS reduced to a business proposition.

"The only business of business is business". (Freidman).

You may say comapnies should have a sense of social responsibilty and some do, but only if it adds to the bottom line.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

No one deliberately employs incompetent staff, they may turn out to be so but that not the same.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

No.. no ..no..!!! You are entirely missing the point

 

I'm not actually Col, read back and was referring to the hiring of incompetenet staff that you alleged Serco do. You have focused on the careers service and not recognised my point,

[Brew 5,423]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Interestingly, today the Tory Dept for Education announced a huge expansion of Further Education Colleges. 

 

For one awful moment I thought you were going to say something positive about the Tories but you saved yourself with:

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

and simply mention that it was Gove who shut down FE from 2010..

You couldn't make it up.

 

 

If different schemes were never tried society would stagnate. Some work, some don't and we adapt, adopt and move on.

[Brew 5,423]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

 

I do consider it to be so.. and I really don't think it matters whether it is pointed out by raging Trots, or more mainstream left of centre folk.

 

The deal seems always to be.. 'You give us a few hundred grand of your cash for our Tory Funds. and we'll give you a few hundred million of other people's money in return.'.

 

It is bent..and you will never convince me otherwise.

 

It's a conspiracy theory Col and clearly not so or the oppostion would file formal complaints left and right. We don't 'give' them money, we buy commodities or services. Yes some of the figures are eye watering but we're not talking about buying a carton of milk from the corner shop. We at least got something for our money.

 

 I can't recall you ever criticising Labour for spending billions and getting NOTHING in return:

 

Quote-

 

"An investigation by The Independent has found that the total cost of Labour's 10 most notorious IT failures is equivalent to more than half of the budget for Britain's schools last year. Parliament's spending watchdog has described the projects as "fundamentally flawed" and blamed ministers for "stupendous incompetence" in managing them"...