Private sector is more efficient than the public sector
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
When it comes to the DWP contracting work out the private sector is failing miserably but the DWP is paying them massive amounts regardless, so where's the incentive to do a proper job of it?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-are-being-paid-five-times-over-job-half-don
It seems to me that all this government is really doing is stimulating/subsidising private industry with tax payer money.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-are-being-paid-five-times-over-job-half-don
It seems to me that all this government is really doing is stimulating/subsidising private industry with tax payer money.
Role reversal.
Difference is whenever I make a thread people immediately assume it's rubbish before actually reading it. At least I waited 30 odd posts before calling it.
The politics that seep down through all management levels is the issue in the public sector. Someone high up without a clue of what happens on the ground making bad decision after bad decision and then having the turd polished to an acceptable level on the way backup from the ground by management who don't want to look bad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
The private sector is usually more efficient than the public sector, but only when there is pressure from competition. When it comes to tax payers money, efficiency is all-important, so competition is all important.
That isn't to say we should privatise everything, but when we do, we ought to make sure that companies are kept on their toes.
That isn't to say we should privatise everything, but when we do, we ought to make sure that companies are kept on their toes.
Public is more inefficient though, for dozens of reasons. This also has nothing to do with cost of expensive services like some people have said in this thread. That's just an expensive service, doesn't mean it has to be inefficient.
Got government interfering. Constantly changing goal posts.
You have unions interfering.
You have managers who have been promoted who aren't capable, there's still a massive boys club in public sector at all levels. Far worse than private, although private still has some.
Public sector don't see the need to waste money on HR, which causes all sorts off issues, especially when combined with the union problem.
God I wish my contract didn't have a no media leak clause. Getting several K, is not worth the losing job over.
Last edited:
10000x this.
Private and public both have pros & cons, but when you outsource public work to private companies you tend to a) not save much and b) lower the quality of work.
In fact sometimes the savings are negative
Standard Tory tactic, prepare their private sector mates for a good old feast on the taxpayers money and then cherry pick statistics to tell the taxpayer "it's the best way"
If anything goes wrong tell them it was Labours fault and talk some ******** about austerity.
Rinse and repeat.
Yeah, it was terrible when the Tories did this between 1997 and 2008.
On another note, a sterling Latex Dog thread that delivers.
Kwak is a nice beer
Commons select committees have shown time and time again that these so called cheaper contracts work out anything but - they cost the taxpayer serious money. But to hell with the taxpayer just so long as the anti public sector dogma continues. Oh! and we have managed to hive off yet another little earner to our friends in business cough cough!
If Maude doesn't get a knighthood out of all his shenanigans I'll be amazed.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
You have to distinguish between competition in a market for consumers and "competition" when the government spends other people's money in the market to acquire services. The one is subject to the price mechanism and consumer demand. The other one the state is deciding based on arbitrary factors like targets and standards and what they think the market would charge for such a service. In the private sector the market sets the price based on no end of factors and the consumer selects the one that best fits their price point in a search for value for money. One of the arguments is that the consumer is in a better position to decide what level of service they want over some third party who is spending their money on their behalf. Without the price mechanism and with out the risks that go with spending money that you earned when they spend money they are susceptible to the missallocation of resources. While the consumer might want to spend more of their money on education, the government only allocates for example 60% of what the consumer would have and spends the other 40% on upgrading their council offices.
Last edited:
I have to agree with this 100% to be honest. I've worked for a company that pays minimal wage and to be honest the workforce has no motivation. A simple pay rise would lift spirits and I personally think that work productivity would increase.
Please it's all been going to **** since that piece of scum Thatcher decided no one except a few toffs deserved a fair living.
That doesn't refute my point that just a single political party is guilty of it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer, why would she care about the aristocracy? And what on earth gives you the idea that the aristocracy are the problem? Far from it, its the capital class which have profited the most from the last two decades.
I have to chuckle when people seem to think that nationalisation is the standard state of the railways, with the current privatised state of them being an oddity...
Since railways were invented they have been nationalised for about 20% of their life. Mostly due to the second world war...
Do you work where I do ?
2 months to do something that would take me literally 5 minutes. 2 months of red tape.
Oh well, been contracting into public sector now for 18+ months and getting paid to do it. If I was employed, I would have walked out within a month.
The problem with the public sector is what they pay and fixed pay bands. Good people are not paid what they are worth and so are generally not recruited leaving you full of an office that don't give a **** for various reasons. From there it is a spiral downhill. Add in to the equation that they think they can bring in the skills such as contractors and expect it to work without changing the management and the initial problems and you have a money pit.
I could (and have before) brought in a team of 15 people and completed the project in 6 months compared to 3 years and 350+
It is extremely frustrating and and sapped the life out of me during these 18 months, but then pay is good.
Last edited: