FlyTheNest

A haven
It is currently Sat 20 Oct, 2018 11:43 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 7:10 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:22 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom
Has thanked: 893 times
Been thanked: 5957 times
Morning all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 7:37 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21598
Has thanked: 17258 times
Been thanked: 31338 times
Only if you are amoral and a game player would you come out with that statement


Vote Turnip.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 8:23 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 8:15 pm
Posts: 1797
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 3675 times
HindleA wrote:
Only if you are amoral and a game player would you come out with that statement


Vote Turnip.


I enjoy playing 'backwards in time' on the PS4, especially the bit where you get to kill kittens. I don't know who to vote for.

_________________
It's not how you fall, it's how you land


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 8:49 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6152
Has thanked: 2140 times
Been thanked: 10151 times
Morning :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 8:59 am 
Offline
Foreign Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1514
Has thanked: 4770 times
Been thanked: 2195 times
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/wp-co ... .28.26.png

Image

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... pse/15/01/

The Tories only noticed two or three days ago, but I heard that the market has been shorting Carillion on and off for years !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 9:10 am 
Offline
Speaker of the House

Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am
Posts: 2016
Has thanked: 13352 times
Been thanked: 4068 times
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-dema ... st-brexit/
"EU demands delay to end of free movement post Brexit"
Quote:
In the draft, obtained by POLITICO, EU diplomats have proposed extending the deadline by which EU citizens living in Britain can claim a special residency status to the EU’s preferred end for the transition of December 31, 2020 — 21 months after the U.K.’s official withdrawal date.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5061
Has thanked: 10364 times
Been thanked: 12376 times
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/counting ... ssion=true
Quote:
There has not been governmental exposure to a private sector liquidation of this magnitude since the collapse of half the British banking system a decade ago.

The numbers involved in Carillion will be smaller than the tens of billions required then, but the potential impact on public services is immediately far more severe.


Andrew Adonis suggests the bill will be in the region of £600m for contracting in new suppliers etc. More significantly, the idea of transfer of risk behind PFI's has been comprehensively debunked. Government simply can't offload responsibility for provision of essential public services. The private sector always can and always will simply walk away at the end of the day. Other countries are clearly well aware of this and make sure they reduce the risk with a wide plurality of private sector providers. I really was stunned at the amount of large contracts worth over 100,000 euros the UK had in comparison to countries like France and Germany in the article that I linked to the other day.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 10:21 am 
Offline
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2579
Has thanked: 5646 times
Been thanked: 5970 times
Some of those big companies will get even bigger now when they pick up bits of Carillion.

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5061
Has thanked: 10364 times
Been thanked: 12376 times
gilsey wrote:
Some of those big companies will get even bigger now when they pick up bits of Carillion.


Yes, isn't Serco in particular expected to pick up some of Carillion's contracts? Might be worth checking their financial health!

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2579
Has thanked: 5646 times
Been thanked: 5970 times
Business Live reporting on Carillion suppliers.
Quote:
UK’s horticultural services company Flora-tec has been badly hit by the collapse of Carillion, giving a chilling example of the ‘domino effect’ that could hit the UK economy.

The firm faces a loss of £800,000 on work carried out for Carillion -- and took the dramatic step of laying off 10 people yesterday after the liquidation.

Andy Bradley, managing director of Flora-tec, told the BBC’s Wake Up To Money programme that his firm provided ‘ground maintenance’ at schools and hospitals. His staff were up at 3am during last month’s cold snap -- clearing snow and putting salt down.

But he doesn’t expect to be paid for that work; a serious blow, as £800,00 is over 10% of annual turnover.

Bradley warns that he now faces “a massive black hole in our accounts” with no guarantee that he will ever be repaid.

He was damning about the government’s role in the crisis. They encouraged small firms such as Flora-tec to get involved in public sector contracts, Bradley explains. And they also kept handing Carillion contracts after last summer’s profits warning; if Westminster trusted Carillion, why wouldn’t a small SME?

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 11:32 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8064
Has thanked: 806 times
Been thanked: 17068 times
HindleA wrote:
Vote Turnip


Wasn't that Baldrick's party in Blackadder?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 12:15 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
1. Companies going bust is essential to how free market competition is supposed to work. We really do want some companies to go into insolvency and disappear.

2. At a very simple level, the reason that Carillion has gone bust is that it has been making losses on the services that it has been providing (ie the government has been paying less than those services are worth). That is: the taxpayer has gained at the expense of shareholders in Carillion.

3. The government's role from here on in is twofold. Try to ensure there is not spillover damage to other (solvent) companies. Seek to ensure that there remains good competition in bidding for work in the future (the fact that Carillion the company is insolvent doesn't mean necessarily that the underlying business owned by that company cannot be sold,)

4. The failure of Carillion doesn't show that outsourcing doesn't work, anymore than the profitability of other outsourced companies shows it. It is a tricky cost/benefit question.

5. Not all outsourcing is good (or bad). The attempt by some (eg Corbyn, Pidcock) to claim it is all bad discredits them, just as much as the claims by some that it is all good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
1. Companies going bust is essential to how free market competition is supposed to work. We really do want some companies to go into insolvency and disappear.

2. At a very simple level, the reason that Carillion has gone bust is that it has been making losses on the services that it has been providing (ie the government has been paying less than those services are worth). That is: the taxpayer has gained at the expense of shareholders in Carillion.

3. The government's role from here on in is twofold. Try to ensure there is not spillover damage to other (solvent) companies. Seek to ensure that there remains good competition in bidding for work in the future (the fact that Carillion the company is insolvent doesn't mean necessarily that the underlying business owned by that company cannot be sold,)

4. The failure of Carillion doesn't show that outsourcing doesn't work, anymore than the profitability of other outsourced companies shows it. It is a tricky cost/benefit question.

5. Not all outsourcing is good (or bad). The attempt by some (eg Corbyn, Pidcock) to claim it is all bad discredits them, just as much as the claims by some that it is all good.



1. It is but then the conséquences should not be that lots of other companies fall into trouble, that the Government is not taking into account the clear financial problems when handing out contracts and the directors of the copmpany are allowed to walk away with cash

2. I do not see that you can say that......we do not know the terms Under which the contract was given. The reasons why they did not make money can be varied and may not be linked to what was paid for it. They signed the contract

3. That is the reactive part of Government's role. The proactive part is to avoid situations like this happening through good governance and oversight

4. I have seen outsourcing up close and it has become a dogmatic view that private is better than public. Appropriate outsourcing works well to access skills not available in-house. What does not seem to work so well is when Government uses private companies to provide wholesale public services - and xcompanies that have no competence in the area either. My company has just got rid of an internal organisation like that as it was inefficient and lacked accountability.

5. I will just ignore your pathetic attempt to have a go at the Labour leadership again

You spent yesterday claiming to be a 'European Social Democrat' - whatever that is, have you ever lived on the continent to know? In reality you seem to be a typical 'socialise the risks' and 'private is better than public' neoliberal

I have no dogmatic dislike of appropriate outsourcing but Carillion (who I knew well as Tarmac) had no competence in huge areas that they were given contracts in. And they ended up sub-contracting to smaller providers - all these layers between the procurer of the service and the deliverer is very inefficient - especially when you find the person delivering the service is working in the same place all the time for years. Outsourcing should be done when there is a limited demand for a service (eg maintenance of specialist Equipment that needs servicing twice a year, or specialist safety advice). If you do have to outsource Something like cleaning then why not use a local provider who you can ensure looks at quality as much as cost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:01 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Yeah, that sort of stuff just says they've never run a whelk stall to me. "End outsourcing" is going to become another "crack down on tax avoidance" as a way of "funding" stuff they don't want to stick taxes up for. If you take competition out of the public sector, you have to be extremely careful about producer capture.

What I'd like is a sharper focus on what is and isn't appropriate for outsourcing. For all sorts of reasons, I don't think academy chains are appropriate. I don't know so much about health but it seems to me there lots of that is inappropriate too because it works by taking the easiest cases out and leaving the harder stuff for the state.

But I think Carillion is a scandal for all sorts of reasons. Treatment of trade creditors, if half of what we've heard, ought to have ruled them out of new contracts. Plus blacklisting. Let's not let it go to waste in terms of looking at that.


Last edited by Tubby Isaacs on Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:02 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7369
Has thanked: 4493 times
Been thanked: 17057 times
Arguments against outsourcing:

1. Loss of control
2. Paying the same money over inevitably leads to a lower paid workforce and/or lower numbers employed. Outsourcing company profits have to come from somewhere.
3. Leads to the pretence that there are fewer people working in the public sector than actually are - rather neat way of shifting people over to the private sector but ultimately it is trying to fool people.

Why on earth have the same people doing exactly the same work but working for a different company - it never did make any sense except to the free market loons and the "public sector reform" people.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15253
Has thanked: 84170 times
Been thanked: 13702 times
Good-afternoon, everyone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:08 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8064
Has thanked: 806 times
Been thanked: 17068 times
Ah yes, "public sector reform" - an obsession of Progress types even now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:15 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
"Progress types" seem very common in local government. Isn't it possible that many of them are just people like us trying to make their not very large budgets go as far as possible?

And yeah, that comes at a cost, and some of eg the redevelopment of estates in London is way over the line, but I didn't get any big sense of local government as a Corbynite priority in the election. When you make student fees a priority, you're leaving gaps elsewhere. If the best they can do is provide councils with about the same money and call them "Blairites", that's not very good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Outsourcing's original justification in the private sector was that it allowed a company to concentrate on its core business. My accounting firm 20 years ago had outsourced its cleaning, catering and (most controversially) filing. All the services were very efficient, and I'm sure my firm's managers felt better that they didn't have to spend management time on them. But there's no doubt the wages were lower- when you see a big firm claim to be a living wage employer, ask them about their contractors.

I think a broader workers right agenda is the way to go though, rather than blanket opposition to outsourcing. That part of Corbynism is definitely good, and Labour should have gone their years before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15253
Has thanked: 84170 times
Been thanked: 13702 times
The work remains and needs immediate attention, the workers are available and need to get paid - NOW


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Is it me, or is Rayner strangely cautious on academy chains? I think there's a very straightforward case for ending a bunch of outsourcing, right there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Actually on local government, I see the strong calls for far more spend in "the regions" as basically guaranteeing more unpalatable stuff in London. It'll have to raise more of its own money for stuff, and that means sweating its assets (ie its land) a great deal. That doesn't mean loads more council houses with gardens in Zone 1-2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Quote:
He was damning about the government’s role in the crisis. They encouraged small firms such as Flora-tec to get involved in public sector contracts, Bradley explains. And they also kept handing Carillion contracts after last summer’s profits warning; if Westminster trusted Carillion, why wouldn’t a small SME?


This is an excellent point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:33 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8064
Has thanked: 806 times
Been thanked: 17068 times
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Is it me, or is Rayner strangely cautious on academy chains? I think there's a very straightforward case for ending a bunch of outsourcing, right there.


That is a fair point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Yeah, that sort of stuff just says they've never run a whelk stall to me. "End outsourcing" is going to become another "crack down on tax avoidance" as a way of "funding" stuff they don't want to stick taxes up for. If you take competition out of the public sector, you have to be extremely careful about producer capture.

What I'd like is a sharper focus on what is and isn't appropriate for outsourcing. For all sorts of reasons, I don't think academy chains are appropriate. I don't know so much about health but it seems to me there lots of that is inappropriate too because it works by taking the easiest cases out and leaving the harder stuff for the state.

But I think Carillion is a scandal for all sorts of reasons. Treatment of trade creditors, if half of what we've heard, ought to have ruled them out of new contracts. Plus blacklisting. Let's not let it go to waste in terms of looking at that.


Tubby,

Do you really think anyone wants to end outsourcing completely? Public and private companies have always contracted work out to smaller and more specialised companies. They always will

If you are a politician then you have to try to simplify things for the elctorate - any attempts at complexity fall on deaf ears. I have learnt from Brexit that any attempt to nuance a message is exploited and not worth it anyway

Do you really, though, think the appearance of huge 'service providers' who claim to do anything for anyone from maintenace through to catering and determining if people are fit for work or not is anyway to run anything? As I said my company has just got rid of our own internal equivalent because it was so useless.

To give an example - recruitment

I fill in a form to say I have a space in my organisation with a profile
This gets sent to HR
HR organises advert on website
CV sent to a 'recruitment company'
They send me a list of names
I send back the names to HR because none fulfill the profile (and it transpires they are people who have been on the books for ages who they are trying to get moved on)
HR feedback to company
Company send me a new list of names - most of which I reject and feedback to HR
Company sends me a new list of inappropriate people.....I moan to HR
Company eventually sends me all CVs
I go through them and find that those rejected contain the most suitable and interesting candidates
I give list of names to HR
HR inform another service provider (SP) to organise telephone interviews
I do telephone interviews
Send results back
SPinforms candidates (or not)
Candidates contact me to ask why they have not heard
I give feedback to them and moan at HR
SP organises interviews
I organise lunch because SP have forgotten
I feedback directly to candidates on the day about the decision
HR pulls together the contract

In the old days I and a personnel officer could have done all that far more quiickly and with less effort. The outsurcing has cost the money to the external service(?) providers but it actually takes more time and effort to do the recruitment. The ESP is in a cheaper country though and there are less HR managers so it looks from the HR side 'cheaper' - the problem is it isn't and the level of quality has deteriorated


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7369
Has thanked: 4493 times
Been thanked: 17057 times
There was talk a couple of years back of an academy chain outsourcing all their academy school support staff.

Probably would have happened except that they were in trouble with the standard of education and backed down.

Can you imagine HTs being told "yes of course you have autonomy to do what you want with us...except these people. We decide what happens to them"

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7369
Has thanked: 4493 times
Been thanked: 17057 times
Interesting blog from edu person John Howson on outsourcing.

https://johnohowson.wordpress.com/2018/ ... ll-circle/

Quote:
Finally, back to the Carillion saga. Fortunately, Oxfordshire had been in the process of recovering the contracts for both construction and facilities management services outsourced in 2012 to Carillion. This is as a result of pressure from councillors of all political parties. From 2014, issues about school construction projects not meeting deadlines were regularly raised political group briefings.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15253
Has thanked: 84170 times
Been thanked: 13702 times
A lot of news people need to know about don't make it into headlines
Different reasons for that, not a grand conspiracy
UK media ownership and current media laws
Dacre's headline today was what?
A news outlet makes an influential angry, that newspaper gets sued into the ground


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15253
Has thanked: 84170 times
Been thanked: 13702 times
Quote:
"If the UK government sticks to its decision to leave, Brexit will become a reality – with all its negative consequences - in March next year.
Unless there is a change of heart among our British friends. Wasn’t it David Davis himself who said: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”
We, here on the continent, haven’t had a change of heart. Our hearts are still open to you. Thank you."

- Donald Tusk
16 January 2018
Report by President Donald Tusk to the European Parliament on December European Council meetings


http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press ... etings/pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Arguments against outsourcing:

1. Loss of control
2. Paying the same money over inevitably leads to a lower paid workforce and/or lower numbers employed. Outsourcing company profits have to come from somewhere.
3. Leads to the pretence that there are fewer people working in the public sector than actually are - rather neat way of shifting people over to the private sector but ultimately it is trying to fool people.

Why on earth have the same people doing exactly the same work but working for a different company - it never did make any sense except to the free market loons and the "public sector reform" people.


If we took that argument to its logical conclusion why not insource everything (services, goods, the lot)?

If all outsourcing did was have exactly the same goods/services delivered by a private company rather than the state, and there was nothing at all to be gained from that, then yes, collectivise everything and have it delivered by the state.

But, of course, when we reflect on that reductio ad absudum of the usual "outsourcing is bad" argument, we drawback.

It is, of course, ridiculous to just assume that all outsourcing of goods and services is necessarily better than having the same goods and services delivered through central state organisation.

But the opposite assumption is just as daft. Should we bring in house road building? The building of government offices? The supply of drugs and equipment to the NHS? If not why not?

Should what we outsource be determined by past practice (eg road building has always been outsourced) or by what works?

If your answer to every question of how a public good (healthcare, housing, food, education etc) is best delivered is "create a market" I think you're wrong.

If your answer to every question of how a public good (healthcare, housing, food, education etc) is best delivered is "collective state provision" I think you're wrong.

Fixed evidence free ideologies should be our enemy. Both main parties are now in its grip.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7369
Has thanked: 4493 times
Been thanked: 17057 times
@Sh

Let's just stick to what I said about the same people doing the same jobs i.e. services. That's outsourcing. And it has nothing to do with the production of goods which then are used by the public sector.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
@Sh

Let's just stick to what I said about the same people doing the same jobs i.e. services. That's outsourcing. And it has nothing to do with the production of goods which then are used by the public sector.



1. I am not sure what economic reason you have (or could have) for thinking outsourcing goods is fine, but outsourcing services isn't.

2. What about road building? Building offices? Lawyers? These are services. Should they be brought in-house?

3. I will qualify one thing I said above. There is a cost involved in any change. So unless you can demonstrate one is better than the other, there is a (conservative) reason for leaving alone. So, past practice can determine this question, it isn't just a question of what works in the abstract. I think that about the NHS: there are better systems out there but the cost of moving to them is too high, so make work what we have,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21598
Has thanked: 17258 times
Been thanked: 31338 times
Also isn't necessary either/or,you can attempt to have the best of both Worlds.Social.care -State provision of funds via personal budget/direct payment and create a default of living wage,necessarilly training etc-avoids the 15 m slap and dash/need for profit and facillitates control where it should belong,I was part of a local authority in house team,it was well regarded but what it couldn't do was provide flexibility,the bed before 8 because of organisational and costs considerations etc.You need proper funding and oversight.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7369
Has thanked: 4493 times
Been thanked: 17057 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
There was talk a couple of years back of an academy chain outsourcing all their academy school support staff.

Probably would have happened except that they were in trouble with the standard of education and backed down.

Can you imagine HTs being told "yes of course you have autonomy to do what you want with us...except these people. We decide what happens to them"


Actually, I've just remembered what would have made this even worse - the academy chain was going to outsource it all to (IIRC) PwC who would then outsource again. Two lots of money going missing in the middle.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:26 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21598
Has thanked: 17258 times
Been thanked: 31338 times
In the round the PA was paid on a par and in our case certainly easier,we often got the cases others pulled out of but obliged to cover.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:29 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Always amusing to see politics as it really is revealed

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... d-11861188

here is who Ms Shawcroft is, for those who like a good laugh

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... er-hamlets


Last edited by SpinningHugo on Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Very amusing

https://evolvepolitics.com/chairman-of- ... eresa-may/

especially when you look at the details

https://www.ft.com/content/8f14f694-faa ... 9be7f3120a


Last edited by SpinningHugo on Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:37 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
HSOM, I wasn't very clear. I don't expect Labour to end all outsourcing. What I'm worried about is that, as in rail, renationalizing becomes a way of making unfunded promises. That's basically a Jeremy Hunt style "efficiency savings". As you all know, I've been pretty appalled by Labour talk on rail. Corbyn did it again last night in his Carillion piece. "£2bn bailout" to VTEC is utter rubbish.

I think a narrative is being threaded together here, and it's, well, looking very threadbare to me. We're promised an investment plan like we've never seen before. That's the best reason to vote Labour at the moment. But I want to see a lot more working.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
I like this. Hadn't seen it before. Good precise promise, "vote Labour and it'll happen".

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/lab ... -1-8870839

Quote:
Labour vows to electrify Burnley and Pendle rail links to Yorkshire


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7369
Has thanked: 4493 times
Been thanked: 17057 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
@Sh

Let's just stick to what I said about the same people doing the same jobs i.e. services. That's outsourcing. And it has nothing to do with the production of goods which then are used by the public sector.



1. I am not sure what economic reason you have (or could have) for thinking outsourcing goods is fine, but outsourcing services isn't.

2. What about road building? Building offices? Lawyers? These are services. Should they be brought in-house?

3. I will qualify one thing I said above. There is a cost involved in any change. So unless you can demonstrate one is better than the other, there is a (conservative) reason for leaving alone. So, past practice can determine this question, it isn't just a question of what works in the abstract. I think that about the NHS: there are better systems out there but the cost of moving to them is too high, so make work what we have,


Building roads and offices are construction not services. Makes sense to have specialist companies doing them. Not the same as outsourcing cleaners, catering, care staff, probation staff etc etc.

Lawyers? Government haven't outsourced then have they - you tell me.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Is it me, or is Rayner strangely cautious on academy chains? I think there's a very straightforward case for ending a bunch of outsourcing, right there.


That is a fair point.


I was alarmed by her "white boys" stuff the other day. I'm worried she might be turning into a "straight talking challenger of the educational establishment".

I wouldn't mind if she was promoted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21598
Has thanked: 17258 times
Been thanked: 31338 times
Carillion held just £29m in cash when it collapsed

Document shows construction group owed £1.3bn to banks.




Carillion held just £29m in cash when it collapsed

Document shows construction group owed
Carillion was left with just £29m in cash when it collapsed, according to a document that reveals the extent of the construction company’s financial black hole.

Papers seen by the Financial Times show the insolvent construction company owed £1.29bn to its banks, including a £790m revolving credit facility and £349m in private placement notes.

Keith Cochrane, the company’s interim chief executive, has stated in a document for the company’s insolvency process that there was so little funding available that the consultants PwC and EY both rejected requests that they be taken on as administrators amid concerns they would not be paid.


The company would apparently have been left with a cash shortfall of £3.5m had it kept operating until Thursday without drawing down further debt facilities.

The document also reveals new details about the final days leading up to the collapse, with a final request made by Carillion to the government for a “guarantee of limited short term funding” for four months to allow it to carry out a restructuring plan last Saturday.

But over the weekend the company was told that the government would not provide this support, or fund an administration process, and would instead support a liquidation, which the company filed for on Monday.

On Tuesday, Greg Clark wrote to the Insolvency Service and the official receiver asking them to “fast-track” the investigation into the conduct of Carillion’s directors ahead of its collapse.

The business secretary has announced that the review should also be extended in scope to consider current and former directors. “This means the official receiver’s investigation will consider whether those who are, or were previously directors of the company may have caused detriment to those owed money, including workers and businesses affected,” the government said.

Mr Clark has also written to the chairman of the Financial Reporting Council, Sir Win Bischoff, asking it to conduct an investigation into the preparation of Carillion’s accounts — as well as its auditors.

“Any evidence of misconduct will be taken very seriously,” he said.

The Financial Conduct Authority is already carrying out its own probe into the “timeliness and content” of market updates ahead of the group’s three profit warnings last year, it announced earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Mr Clark will host a meeting on Tuesday with trade bodies representing hundreds of sub-contractors to Carillion amid concerns about the knock-on impact of the collapse on the wider industry. After that Mr Clark will meet Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, and Len McCluskey, head of the Unite union, to discuss the impact of the insolvency on workers.

Mr Clark is trying to get on the front foot after criticism of the government’s handling of the Carillion situation, including the fact that ministers continued to award contracts to the company even as its financial woes were made public last year.

The level of debt revealed by the documents confirms Carillion’s investors are almost certain to take a total loss, while thousands of contractors will need to wait to see how much can be clawed back from the company’s remaining assets.

Peter Kubik, partner at UHY Hacker Young, said many of Carillion’s creditors should expect to receive less than 1 pence for every pound they are owed by the company.

“There will be a huge knock-on effect among smaller firms, especially as many creditors can expect to receive less than 1p for every £1 they are owed by Carillion,” he said. “Those construction companies and sub-contractors that derived the lion’s share of their income from Carillion are facing some tough months ahead.”

The document seen by the FT shows that Carillion was so desperate for cash that it had asked banks to pay £350m to suppliers under so-called reverse factoring agreements, or money paid by banks in advance to Carillion’s trade creditors.

It also owed the Treasury £16m in tax by January 31 2018. The liability on its defined benefit scheme was reported as £587m in the documents, though pensions experts expect the final figure to be much larger.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
@Sh

Let's just stick to what I said about the same people doing the same jobs i.e. services. That's outsourcing. And it has nothing to do with the production of goods which then are used by the public sector.



1. I am not sure what economic reason you have (or could have) for thinking outsourcing goods is fine, but outsourcing services isn't.

2. What about road building? Building offices? Lawyers? These are services. Should they be brought in-house?

3. I will qualify one thing I said above. There is a cost involved in any change. So unless you can demonstrate one is better than the other, there is a (conservative) reason for leaving alone. So, past practice can determine this question, it isn't just a question of what works in the abstract. I think that about the NHS: there are better systems out there but the cost of moving to them is too high, so make work what we have,


Building roads and offices are construction not services. Makes sense to have specialist companies doing them. Not the same as outsourcing cleaners, catering, care staff, probation staff etc etc.

Lawyers? Government haven't outsourced then have they - you tell me.


I'm sure they buy in lots of the more expensive law when they need it.

Probation is the most ludicrous idea so far, though Labour talked about "contestability" a bit, but didn't do it. Same as they did with Prison Service prisons, likely just saw it as a way of making the public sector improve. But do that too much and you'll end up having to follow through.

I think you can make a case that eg prison service HQ's main business is to support prisons. So in that sense, catering, and cleaning are not core to that. But of course there are workers' rights issues with outsourcing too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:49 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21598
Has thanked: 17258 times
Been thanked: 31338 times
PwC has been employed by the government’s insolvency service to carry out the liquidation.

Carillion, a company with annual revenues of £5.2bn, had seen its valuation collapse from more than £1bn at the start of last year to less than £70m. But the fallout for the contractor’s 45,000 global staff has been particularly devastating.

Although the government has agreed to continue paying Carillion’s public sector workforce salaries, those in the private sector will find out in the next 24 hours whether their former employer’s clients have agreed to continue paying them.

Carillion has been on a downward spiral since issuing a profit warning last July that revealed its construction contracts were less valuable than previously thought, resulting in a £845m write-off.

On Monday it said it had “no choice but to take steps to enter into compulsory liquidation with immediate effect” after talks failed to find another way to deal with the company’s debts.

Mr Cochrane also said that the company’s cash position was further eroded after Royal Bank of Scotland, the state-backed bank, last Friday proposed that the company move to pre-fund its BACs payments. This would mean that the company would pay suppliers two days earlier than its cash flow forecasts assumed, he said, leading to a hit of between £2m and £20m.

RBS and EY declined to comment. PwC and the UK government were not immediately available for comment.

City analysts and investors had been largely positive about Carillion up until late 2016, with only a small number of hedge funds starting to make bets against the company based on its increasing amount of off-balance sheet debt.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
@Sh

Let's just stick to what I said about the same people doing the same jobs i.e. services. That's outsourcing. And it has nothing to do with the production of goods which then are used by the public sector.



1. I am not sure what economic reason you have (or could have) for thinking outsourcing goods is fine, but outsourcing services isn't.

2. What about road building? Building offices? Lawyers? These are services. Should they be brought in-house?

3. I will qualify one thing I said above. There is a cost involved in any change. So unless you can demonstrate one is better than the other, there is a (conservative) reason for leaving alone. So, past practice can determine this question, it isn't just a question of what works in the abstract. I think that about the NHS: there are better systems out there but the cost of moving to them is too high, so make work what we have,


Building roads and offices are construction not services. Makes sense to have specialist companies doing them. Not the same as outsourcing cleaners, catering, care staff, probation staff etc etc.

Lawyers? Government haven't outsourced then have they - you tell me.


Lots and lots of legal work is outsourced by the state, yes, although there are also inhouse government lawyers too. I assume there are plenty of other services that are outsourced too (catering, transportation etc).

Despite the silly rhetoric, Labour won't be ending outsourcing, anymore than the Tories will be able to put everything outside the state. it isn't as easy as "outsourcing is bad".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Probation is the most ludicrous idea so far, though Labour talked about "contestability" a bit, but didn't do it. Same as they did with Prison Service prisons, likely just saw it as a way of making the public sector improve. But do that too much and you'll end up having to follow through.

I think you can make a case that eg prison service HQ's main business is to support prisons. So in that sense, catering, and cleaning are not core to that. But of course there are workers' rights issues with outsourcing too.


Outsourcing probation is a classic example of outsourcing for bad reasons. It was combined with serious cuts, so giving the MoJ deniability ("it is all the fault of provider X, not us.")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 3:00 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8064
Has thanked: 806 times
Been thanked: 17068 times
Pleased to say that I have never voted for Shawcroft. A record I fully intend to maintain :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 3:09 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Pleased to say that I have never voted for Shawcroft. A record I fully intend to maintain :)



I bet Ken, Jackie and George have though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 3:13 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8064
Has thanked: 806 times
Been thanked: 17068 times
Galloway hasn't been a party member since 2003, you know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 16 Jan, 2018 3:18 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Ben Chu good on Carillion (though he too is too quick on the East Coast mainline story)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/car ... 62131.html

Centrist Dads unite.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot] and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group