David Cameron promises to 'end state's monopoly' over public services
Prime minister unveils white paper that promises to allow private providers to deliver more public services
Prime minister unveils white paper that promises to allow private providers to deliver more public services
David Cameron has unveiled plans to shake up the "old fashioned" delivery of public services by ending the state's "monopoly" over provision and paving a wider path for private companies, charities and mutuals to play a part.
The prime minister promised to "release the grip of state control and [put] power in people's hands" as he unveiled his long-awaited pubic service reform white paper and claimed that the current delivery of public services is "failing on fairness".
In a speech in east London, Cameron said that while public services were centralised "with all the right intentions", the impact had been "incredibly damaging" to users. This was because the "old fashioned top-down take-what-you're-given culture ... is just not working for a lot of people".
Under the plans, communities will be allowed to set up neighbourhood councils to commission services on a hyper-local level, individuals will get more personal budgets to buy their own services and the use of payment by results will be expanded to encourage markets to develop across the public sector.
Cameron cited as an example his own past experiences trying to get the right wheelchair for his late disabled son, Ivan, before adding that he was still hearing too many stories from others that the right wheelchair only arrives once the child has almost outgrown it.
As another example, the prime minister seized on children who qualify for free school meals who are "half as likely" to get five good GCSEs as their better off peers.
"The last time they counted, just 40 people who had had free school meals were going to Oxbridge – out of 80,000," said Cameron. "We've got a welfare state that doesn't deliver welfare, that doesn't get people back into work but traps them in poverty instead.
"So let me tell you what our change looks like. It's about ending the old big government, top-down way of running public services … releasing the grip of state control and putting power in people's hands. The old dogma that said Whitehall knows best – it's gone. There will be more freedom, more choice and more local control. Ours is a vision of open public services."
Cameron first laid out his plans to roll back the boundaries of the state to allow private providers to deliver more public services in February, but it is widely understood that the plans contained in the white paper have since been downgradedas result of an internal battle with the Liberal Democrats.
The Lib Dems have sought to ensure that any outsourcing and market-driven reforms maintain a strong degree of accountability, prompting a Downing Street source to describe the resulting document as "more greenish than white".
Cameron made clear he intended to see the changes through.
"I know there are those who thought we might be pulling back or losing heart for the task ahead. So let me assure you of this: we are as committed to modernising our public services as we have ever been. I'm not going to make the mistakes of my predecessors … blocking reform, wasting opportunities and wasting time. This is a job that urgently needs to be done, and we are determined to see it through."
Confidential documents obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that ministers have been privately advised to allow schools and hospitals to fail if the government is to succeed in its overhaul of public services.
They reveal research by civil servants warning that markets are susceptible to failure, and that costs could in fact rise unless a true market is created by allowing public services to collapse if they are unsuccessful.
It opens up the potential for schools, hospitals, social care systems and nurseries to fold without the government stepping in to prop them up – a revelation described as "appalling" by Labour.
The documents obtained by the Guardian were prepared by civil servants as part of an internal government review into the consequences for democratic accountability of the coalition's localism, big society and outsourcing reforms that are integral to today's white paper.
source
DON'T BE THE STATES
NOOOOOOOOOO
becous if nothing else, there right. you want a market, things have to be able to fail. otherwise, what you've got is bullshit. they cant have there cake and eat it. either (imo, the correct thing) services are provded with universal covrage, and as few gaps as possble, or the market desised, and people get buggered in small areas where theres not much point from a market point of view (and i know this isnt the only flaw, but its the first that came to my mind)
TOTALLY NOT PRETENDING TO CARE TO JUSTIFY HIS FUCKING DISGUSTING POLITICAL ENDS NO NOT AT ALL
as a disabled person who is petrified of upcoming IB>ESA migration because I have multiple invisible chronic illnesses... yeah, he doesn't give a shit about any of us. never has.
"The last time they counted, just 40 people who had had free school meals were going to Oxbridge – out of 80,000," said Cameron. "We've got a welfare state that doesn't deliver welfare, that doesn't get people back into work but traps them in poverty instead.
I...
To misinterpret facts this way is impressive. It's like looking at a rainbow and declaring the sky is made of paint. Sure, it might look that way, but to actually come to that conclusion is incredibly stupid and/or disingenuous.
I may steal that phrase, just so you know.
Which is exactly the shit that's going on here in the US, they just haven't flat out admitted it yet.
... localisation and personalisation of services to meet an area's unique needs rather than central targers can be a good thing; and creation of a level playing field for companies bidding against the public sector, rather than giving the private sector preferential treatment as happened under the Labour government with health provision is again, a good thing.
HOWEVER
Neither of these should be used as smokescreen reasons to introduce privatisation of public services, especially if the privatisation is primarily motivated by an idealogical loathing of the public sector or as a cover for cuts. Privatisation can work in some circumstances when there is sufficient intrest and investment (e.g. telephones), but has failed horribly in others (e.g. railways) and needs careful consideration before implementation. Nothing about the first year or so of Cameron's government has suggested that he thinks things through or that he has any appreciation of the challenges facing the people who require these services.
New Labour did some not cool things, please don't let this lot further muck us around.
FUCK OFF AND DIE CAMERON!
Some days I hate the whole fucking world. And as someone who is currently completely reliant on social services, this shit scares me so hard.
When the welfare state fails to deliver welfare, the answer is to fix the gaps and increase service, not decimate it entirely. SMH.
I despair.
However, his reasons aren't for the benefit of the people, nor does he really give a fuck if the likes of you or me are royally screwed if this all falls flat on its arse.
well-forn anecdote: a nephew of mine in California told me he, sadly, had to vote to close the park and zoo in his town. Why? Because it wasn't even breaking even. He was stuck, as far as he knew, because he only had profit as a way of judging the worth of something.
WE THE PEOPLE!
Not to mention, things like economies of scale. And in any case, the privatisation of power and rail in the UK should be evidence enough. If you have a monopoly, it's "worse" than government work because there's no retribution at the ballot box.
Fuck the Tories.
Edited at 2011-07-11 06:54 pm (UTC)
Nonononononononononononononono. You know what traps people in poverty? A welfare system that doesn't let you save money, a system that assumes making x amount of money means you can live, a system that forgets that sometimes shit happens and people make mistakes. The system might need reform, but that doesn't mean it's not needed. Poverty is a vicious, vicious trap and taking away welfare makes it that much harder to get out of it.
Edited at 2011-07-11 08:01 pm (UTC)
GO FUCK YOURSELF, CAMERON.
As another example, the prime minister seized on children who qualify for free school meals who are "half as likely" to get five good GCSEs as their better off peers. "The last time they counted, just 40 people who had had free school meals were going to Oxbridge – out of 80,000," said Cameron. "We've got a welfare state that doesn't deliver welfare, that doesn't get people back into work but traps them in poverty instead.
I really don't understand the point he's trying to make here. What? Giving poor kids food makes them stupid? Is that it, Dave?