![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Privatise my breakfast
Mar. 21st, 2012 11:36 amYesterday, we went for breakfast in Islington and then walked down the backstreets to Kings Cross to have a look at the new concourse, which is pretty. Apart from the fact you now have to walk around the corner to board a train, it's a lot nicer than the old entrance which felt like being on a double decker bus c. 1981, coughing in the traffic fumes and cigarette smoke caught under the awning. And built with public money too! (Network Rail and Department of Transport). We can have nice things.
But I wanted to write about privatisation. As ever, I tried to do this on Twitter, but it's hard to make a salient point in 140 characters. Ignoring the politics behind the public/private sector debate (i.e whether things should be owned by the many or by the few), one has to look at whether it will be cheaper for the state or a private company to run a service. Some thoughts:
1. It might be cheaper but will it be effective? A 38p white sliced loaf from Morrisons is never going to be as nice as a £3.80 one from the E5 bakehouse. An example: I worked at a homeless organisation for 5 years. Both Hackney and Islington councils outsourced their housing benefit payments to a private company. My organisation received no payments for over a year until the councils both brought back the services in-house. God knows what happened to private tenants claiming HB.
2, Even if there’s less of a cost to the tax payer, there will probably be more of a cost to the consumer c.f. Virgin Trains, Thames Water, npower. I rarely go a day without someone complaining about their internet or mobile provider.
3. Most of the time it's not cheaper anyway. Westminster council outsourced its financial systems to a private company which now costs the council twice as much as Kensington’s similar system, despite the fact that Kensington & Chelsea is a smaller borough. Capita (etc) put in low bids and then once they've procured the contract, the costs start rising. And rising.
4. So the only conclusion I can draw is that governments and councils privatise services to help our their mates - who'll then usually find a nice little earner on the executive board for those canny politicians.
In other news:
Stonewall campaign.
But I wanted to write about privatisation. As ever, I tried to do this on Twitter, but it's hard to make a salient point in 140 characters. Ignoring the politics behind the public/private sector debate (i.e whether things should be owned by the many or by the few), one has to look at whether it will be cheaper for the state or a private company to run a service. Some thoughts:
1. It might be cheaper but will it be effective? A 38p white sliced loaf from Morrisons is never going to be as nice as a £3.80 one from the E5 bakehouse. An example: I worked at a homeless organisation for 5 years. Both Hackney and Islington councils outsourced their housing benefit payments to a private company. My organisation received no payments for over a year until the councils both brought back the services in-house. God knows what happened to private tenants claiming HB.
2, Even if there’s less of a cost to the tax payer, there will probably be more of a cost to the consumer c.f. Virgin Trains, Thames Water, npower. I rarely go a day without someone complaining about their internet or mobile provider.
3. Most of the time it's not cheaper anyway. Westminster council outsourced its financial systems to a private company which now costs the council twice as much as Kensington’s similar system, despite the fact that Kensington & Chelsea is a smaller borough. Capita (etc) put in low bids and then once they've procured the contract, the costs start rising. And rising.
4. So the only conclusion I can draw is that governments and councils privatise services to help our their mates - who'll then usually find a nice little earner on the executive board for those canny politicians.
In other news:
Stonewall campaign.
