Ministers discover private sector is rubbish

Theophany · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:10

Xordium said:
2.5 million I am sure that will have covered the costs for absolutely everything ...

It's a fraction of what the contract was worth, but given that they're taking heavy losses over it all and have no obligation to donate at all, it's better than nothing.

Xordium said:
I am kind of getting sick of the endless stockhausen bashing (even if he does incite it somewhat) it comes across more as bullying really and casts those that do it in quite a negative light. Well in my eyes at least.

It's usually because the threads are devoid of any well-constructed argument and paint complex issues as being completely two-dimensional when this is a million miles from the truth. All private sector companies are not useless. All government endeavours are not good. Some of the blame for this should actually fall on poorly thought-out government ideas to introduce private enterprise into policy scenarios.

As the old truism goes: 'garbage in, garbage out.'

gjrc · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:12

Xordium said:
2.5 million I am sure that will have covered the costs for absolutely everything ...

I am kind of getting sick of the endless stockhausen bashing (even if he does incite it somewhat) it comes across more as bullying really and casts those that do it in quite a negative light. Well in my eyes at least.

if you consistently make threads which are designed to promote inflammatory responses what do you expect?

:rolleyes:

Richie · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:23

Not sure you can compare the Olympics security program with other things e.g. NHS.

Sure, the private sector company screwed it up but the only public sector bodies able to provide the proper cover were the Police and Armed Forces - both of which are military style organisations with a "just do was you are commanded" type structure i.e. they may bitch and moan but they get the job done and cannot strike etc.

Can you imagine if a cop or soldier just decided not to turn up for work? They wouldn't just lose their job, they could be up on neglect of duty or malingering charges.

Comparing this to the NHS, railways etc is not the same.

Gilly · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:26

stockhausen said:
My 2nd and 3rd languages are absolutely dreadful, I don't get to use them half as often as I would like to, perhaps because I don't post on forums using them . . .

What are you talking about?

Xordium · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:27

Theophany said:
It's usually because the threads are devoid of any well-constructed argument and paint complex issues as being completely two-dimensional when this is a million miles from the truth. All private sector companies are not useless. All government endeavours are not good. Some of the blame for this should actually fall on poorly thought-out government ideas to introduce private enterprise into policy scenarios.

As the old truism goes: 'garbage in, garbage out.'

GD consists of polarised views and complex issues descended into badly-constructed arguments with an absence of any real knowledge along with an eagerness to misapply knowledge elicited from wikipedia.

Plenty of other people cut and run and do not draw the ire of the pack.

Castiel · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:33

Xordium said:
GD consists of polarised views and complex issues descended into badly-constructed arguments with an absence of any real knowledge along with an eagerness to misapply knowledge elicited from wikipedia.

Plenty of other people cut and run and do not draw the ire of the pack.

Hmmm, that is as may be, however Stockhausen has a penchant for entering a thread simply to denigrate either the OP or those who participate. It is not surprising that others do the same to him.

Theophany · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:34

Xordium said:
GD consists of polarised views and complex issues descended into badly-constructed arguments with an absence of any real knowledge along with an eagerness to misapply knowledge elicited from wikipedia.

Plenty of other people cut and run and do not draw the ire of the pack.

I would say any link and run article gets a substantial amount of ire. Stockhausen just happens to do it with mind-numbing regularity.

Basher · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:41

So the failure of private sector projects has nothing to do with the poor management interface from the public sector?

Nutella33 · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:57

i hate to think how bad the NHS could be if its run for profit.

you get a small idea if you look at the care home abuse problem. profits came before patients leading to corner cutting at every opportunity leading to massive malpractice and deaths.

Except for the bit where G4S donated £2.5m to the armed forces to apologise for missing the deadlines because they could not train enough people in time and have subsequently made a loss of between £30-50m over the entire debacle.

not that anyone involved in covering for g4s will see any of that 2.5million or the fact that subsequent losses to the company dont avoid the fact that if there was no pool of public service experience to fall back to we would have had a massive problem on our hands that would have ended up costing the whole country much more than 50million pounds. by the way the contract was for 285million so they still made a decent profit despite failing to fufill the contract. 285 million to the armed forces would have been much more effective and possibly saved thousands of permanent jobs instead of creating a few thousand temporary ones.

Xordium · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:58

Castiel said:
Hmmm, that is as may be, however Stockhausen has a penchant for entering a thread simply to denigrate either the OP or those who participate. It is not surprising that others do the same to him.

Theophany said:
I would say any link and run article gets a substantial amount of ire. Stockhausen just happens to do it with mind-numbing regularity.

So you feel there is not a pack mentality in stockhausen threads and that people don't jump on him irrespective of the quality of his contributions (which has gone up recently).

Basher · 14 Aug 2012 at 14:59

Nutella33 said:
you get a small idea if you look at the care home abuse problem. profits came before patients leading to corner cutting at every opportunity leading to massive malpractice and deaths.

Indeed. Yet there are plenty of homes run privately that DO work. Don't use the case above as an argument that privatisation is bad. It can be done well, if managed effectively.

realBabelfish · 14 Aug 2012 at 15:45

Theophany said:
I'm glad you explained that, this is now much clearer to me than before. It all makes sense now. I was blind but now I see.

Except for the bit where G4S donated £2.5m to the armed forces to apologise for missing the deadlines because they could not train enough people in time and have subsequently made a loss of between £30-50m over the entire debacle.

But yeah, otherwise crystal clear. Makes flawless logical sense. All of it.

if i was a soldier who had been pulled off my annual leave i would want compensating, not them giving some money to help for heroes charity that i would never see. especially when HFH has been criticised recently as it doesnt help ex-soldiers.

i might be (and possibly am) wrong but i thought that they just hadnt made as much money from this, they didnt make a loss. after all, they failed to deliver but kept the cash we paid them, then gave some back.

realBabelfish · 14 Aug 2012 at 15:50

Xordium said:
So you feel there is not a pack mentality in stockhausen threads and that people don't jump on him irrespective of the quality of his contributions (which has gone up recently).

i tend to find all the right wing nutters do go for him like a dog to a bone. its almost like they see the name then pounce. i bet of he posted a 'ive got a cure for cancer' he would also be ridiculed.

realBabelfish · 14 Aug 2012 at 15:53

Basher said:
Indeed. Yet there are plenty of homes run privately that DO work. Don't use the case above as an argument that privatisation is bad. It can be done well, if managed effectively.

but at the end of the day a business is run for profit, whether to the owners or share holders. so if profits fall its the service that is hit. in some cases this doent matter and the company goes out of business. but when we are talking in terms of people this cant be allowed to happen. there are many cases of private health funded by tax payer ending in omnishambles.

Xordium · 14 Aug 2012 at 15:56

Basher said:
Indeed. Yet there are plenty of homes run privately that DO work. Don't use the case above as an argument that privatisation is bad. It can be done well, if managed effectively.

Surely, the onus should be on the private sector, in the case of the NHS as per stockhausen's extrapolation, to demonstrate that it can do better. To date we have no evidence towards this. In fact we have plenty of evidence to show the NHS is highly efficient. You don't make mass change because it has never been shown to be bad - you make it when it has shown to be good.

Tefal · 14 Aug 2012 at 16:31

Nutella33 said:
by the way the contract was for 285million so they still made a decent profit despite failing to fufill the contract. QUOTE]

they made a £50 million loss on the contract in the end.

The value of the contract was 285 million but that's not 285 million profit, that's their costs + a bit of profit, they lost that profit and then some.

grumpysculler · 14 Aug 2012 at 16:37

Xordium said:
2.5 million I am sure that will have covered the costs for absolutely everything ...

This is separate to G4S paying for the costs of the extra personnel. They are covering the cost, this is an extra 'sorry' payment.

G4S are making a loss, as they rightly should.

I didn't read the comments as some have - it isn't a case of "private sector bad" but a case that it isn't economical for the private sector to maintain a massive contingency 'just in case'. Sounds fairly obvious to me - only the state can maintain something like the police or armed forces to cope with unforseen incidents. The private sector could not afford to do such a thing, so it doesn't. Rightly, the state does because it is something that society needs.

Need massive manpower to respond to some problem, need to manage a natural disaster response, give immediate aid to foreign nations, etc - you need something like the military.

That doesn't affect the lolness of the thread title or the anti-private sector gubbins that some folk are prone to come out with.

Basher · 14 Aug 2012 at 16:39

realBabelfish said:
... if profits fall its the service that is hit.

That's true of public sector as well though.

Basher · 14 Aug 2012 at 16:40

Xordium said:
Surely, the onus should be on the private sector, in the case of the NHS as per stockhausen's extrapolation, to demonstrate that it can do better. To date we have no evidence towards this. In fact we have plenty of evidence to show the NHS is highly efficient. You don't make mass change because it has never been shown to be bad - you make it when it has shown to be good.

Yes, of course.

Xordium · 14 Aug 2012 at 16:56

grumpysculler said:
This is separate to G4S paying for the costs of the extra personnel. They are covering the cost, this is an extra 'sorry' payment.

G4S are making a loss, as they rightly should.

I didn't read the comments as some have - it isn't a case of "private sector bad" but a case that it isn't economical for the private sector to maintain a massive contingency 'just in case'. Sounds fairly obvious to me - only the state can maintain something like the police or armed forces to cope with unforseen incidents. The private sector could not afford to do such a thing, so it doesn't. Rightly, the state does because it is something that society needs.

Need massive manpower to respond to some problem, need to manage a natural disaster response, give immediate aid to foreign nations, etc - you need something like the military.

That doesn't affect the lolness of the thread title or the anti-private sector gubbins that some folk are prone to come out with.

So you have never heard of Academi then? That is precisely the remit such companies have aimed for and actually gained in recent times.