Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

Nicky Morgan. Discuss.......

(I do wonder if a. She knows she isn't getting any further in politics so is giving herself a media profile for those future slots on This Week or b. The Tory's are making her go on QT and hanging her out to dry)

Nicky Morgan:

 

[scaramanga]

This is such a stereotype and is not borne out by reality at all. Heaps of teachers in the state system vote Tory, GHod knows why?

What's a stereotype, trots in councils or useless teachers? Both are true.

Local councils are full of trots purely because of selection bias. You need to be that kind of person to sign yourself up for the bureaucracy, meddling, ass kissing, etc that those roles require.

And useless teachers are out there and they are virtually unsackable. The vast majority are good at what they do and some are very good but no non-unionised profession would allow the terrible ones to continue for as long as they can. There was one lazy clam who worked in the same department as my wife about 8 years ago. She'd go of sick with "stress" for 6 months, return to work on reduced duties (teaching about two classes a week) just long enough to qualify for another 6 months of fully paid sick leave and then disappear again. That couldn't happen without a union - she'd have been gone in the first year.

 

[scaramanga]

Agreed.

And "most employees" can you tell you of a colleague that takes the tinkle and is lazy too.

One difference between the private and public sector (I'm sure Scars will disagree. My view is from my experience of managing operations and performance in the private sector and in central Gov.) is that the public sector cannot afford to have the coasters so the recruitment process has to be really stringent. People still get managed out, but the private sector (medium SMEs and below aside) can afford to carry a coaster for a while. The public sector cannot as there is I. A real desire to use public money efficiently II. Robust scrutiny of the use of public money.
The stereotype of the public sector being underperforming, inflexible layabouts is outdated and ignorant.
And this is especially true of teachers and drs/nurses.

"Most teachers" will also tell you about the 70+ hours a week they work and the very low wage that goes with it
(put the skillset of being educated to Masters level, presenting to difficult clients, delivering client education, managing performance and behaviour Into the private sector and see what salary is possible)

Most teachers are good at what they do and conscientious, the strain on them from those who aren't is pretty heavy though. It's also not much comfort to hear that most teachers are good when your child spends 4-5 years in the hands of one of the brick ones.

As for the private sector comparison - of course the private sector employs useless employees, it happens to everyone. In the private sector though, we just sack them. Because of the closed nature of the teaching profession brick teachers get nothing less than a glowing reference - the only way to get rid of them.

 

[monkeybarry]

What's a stereotype, trots in councils or useless teachers? Both are true.

Local councils are full of trots purely because of selection bias. You need to be that kind of person to sign yourself up for the bureaucracy, meddling, ass kissing, etc that those roles require.

And useless teachers are out there and they are virtually unsackable.

But neither are exclusive to the sector or industry which is the rhetoric oft trotted out.
As far as being "that kind of person", that is just plain ignorance. You will find much of the administrative sections of government have a real desire for public service and an interest in it. And choose this path despite the aforementioned bs.
It is true we are still trying to unravel the 70s versions of admin, but have a lot of very talented and dedicated people performing roles that keep society ticking and you'd be screwed without.

 

[monkeybarry]

Most teachers are good at what they do and conscientious, the strain on them from those who aren't is pretty heavy though. It's also not much comfort to hear that most teachers are good when your child spends 4-5 years in the hands of one of the brick ones.

As for the private sector comparison - of course the private sector employs useless employees, it happens to everyone. In the private sector though, we just sack them. Because of the closed nature of the teaching profession brick teachers get nothing less than a glowing reference - the only way to get rid of them.

No you don't.
You know full well it has to be managed to be legal and to avoid reputational damage.
You don't live in the USA.

 

[scaramanga]

No you don't.
You know full well it has to be managed to be legal and to avoid reputational damage.
You don't live in the USA.

There are obviously steps that have to be gone through, but our employment lawyers repeatedly tell us there's no such thing as unfair dismissal within the first 12 (I think it's now 24) months. It's been the basis for a number of decisions we've had to make over the last few years. The obvious caveat is any kind of discrimination - that trumps pretty much anything.

If we haven't picked up that they're brick in 12/24 months then we deserve to have to go through the long process of warnings, etc.

 

[scaramanga]

But neither are exclusive to the sector or industry which is the rhetoric oft trotted out.
As far as being "that kind of person", that is just plain ignorance. You will find much of the administrative sections of government have a real desire for public service and an interest in it. And choose this path despite the aforementioned bs.
It is true we are still trying to unravel the 70s versions of admin, but have a lot of very talented and dedicated people performing roles that keep society ticking and you'd be screwed without.

Not sure about that. I'd have a lot more money, I'd be able to choose where I spent it too. I also wouldn't have to pay for things twice like schooling and healthcare.

 

[monkeybarry]

Not sure about that. I'd have a lot more money, I'd be able to choose where I spent it too. I also wouldn't have to pay for things twice like schooling and healthcare.

You'd still need a system of government to set standards and hold them to account.

But those two aside, how do suppose things like infrastructure and justice would work?!

 

[monkeybarry]

There are obviously steps that have to be gone through, but our employment lawyers repeatedly tell us there's no such thing as unfair dismissal within the first 12 (I think it's now 24) months. It's been the basis for a number of decisions we've had to make over the last few years. The obvious caveat is any kind of discrimination - that trumps pretty much anything.

If we haven't picked up that they're brick in 12/24 months then we deserve to have to go through the long process of warnings, etc.

Agreed completely.
Again, not exclusive to the private sector - and the case of teachers there is a very compelling argument that having to pass an on the job Masters level qualification will both identify those that cannot perform and put off those that want an easy ride

(Edit, and yes it is now 24 rather than 12 for tribunal eligibility. There is also now a fee to "stop erroneous cases")

 

[scaramanga]

You'd still need a system of government to set standards and hold them to account.

I think that for the cost of the government and its services, there are plenty of private sector bodies that could do a better/cheaper job. The difference being that for the public sector, inefficiency means sitting across a desk from someone and explaining yourself. In the private sector, inefficiency means bankruptcy.

But those two aside, how do suppose things like infrastructure and justice would work?!

I'd own a shotgun with axe attached to the barrel (for melee attacks) and I'd probably build a fort.

 

[monkeybarry]

I think that for the cost of the government and its services, there are plenty of private sector bodies that could do a better/cheaper job. The difference being that for the public sector, inefficiency means sitting across a desk from someone and explaining yourself. In the private sector, inefficiency means bankruptcy.


I'd own a shotgun with axe attached to the barrel (for melee attacks) and I'd probably build a fort.

Trust me, the private sector companies are often the problem and usually picked because they are cheap.
Also, your theory only works for SMEs. Multinationals senior management and boards will still receive salary and dividends irrespective of performance as subsidiary's come and go.
It's also very naive to look at services as private sector enterprise as the service needs delivering and the risk and impact of failure is potentially catastrophic. Unlike a competive market where failure only means unavailablilty of a product/service or a competitor filling the gap if it's financially viable.

 

[thfcsteff]

Simply put, when you contract stuff out to the 'lowest bidder' you will always get what is coming i.e. inferior product, brick service, etc, etc...I only wish inefficiency was the only denominator of success in the private sector. The truth is, unless you are prepared to underbid your competitors (which would thus require, on your part, the hiring of/purchase of inferior staff/parts-ingredients, you will end up dying away. There has to be a minimum below which everyone agrees a service/job cannot be done/supplied properly, otherwise things start to fall apart.

 

[scaramanga]

Trust me, the private sector companies are often the problem and usually picked because they are cheap.
Also, your theory only works for SMEs. Multinationals senior management and boards will still receive salary and dividends irrespective of performance as subsidiary's come and go.
It's also very naive to look at services as private sector enterprise as the service needs delivering and the risk and impact of failure is potentially catastrophic. Unlike a competive market where failure only means unavailablilty of a product/service or a competitor filling the gap if it's financially viable.

If we were to truly open up all (or as many as possible) services to the market then there would be significant competition. That competition would allow businesses to compete on all kinds of measures, just as they do in the real world. You don't have to be the cheapest, you can be the best, have the shortest lead times, offer value added services, etc.

Your argument of risk makes no sense. Surely the fact that all of those services are so vital means we have to open them up to the market. To put them into the hands of a few lottery winners or, even worse, some government institutions being meddled with by clueless politicians is far more risky in my eyes.

 

[scaramanga]

Simply put, when you contract stuff out to the 'lowest bidder' you will always get what is coming i.e. inferior product, brick service, etc, etc..

I'm not advocating the cheapest service being the automatic choice, I'm simply advocating choice.

Even if we spend exactly the same amount on the services, the very existence of competition will make the services better, or faster or whatever we value most per pound.

I only wish inefficiency was the only denominator of success in the private sector.

That wasn't what I said. An inefficient company will fail. That's not the same as saying only inefficient companies fail.

The truth is, unless you are prepared to underbid your competitors (which would thus require, on your part, the hiring of/purchase of inferior staff/parts-ingredients, you will end up dying away. There has to be a minimum below which everyone agrees a service/job cannot be done/supplied properly, otherwise things start to fall apart.

That's not how business works.

My company is a very long way from the cheapest in our market, yet we still get a lot of work sent our way. I'd expect the same from the private sector providing public services - just allowing choice opens up the opportunity to choose a provider based on any measure of "better".

Equally your understanding of cost savings is flawed. Cheaper staff/raw material does not mean lower quality. I employ plenty of Polish workers on minimum wage who are twice as good as English staff on £10/HR. And close relationships with suppliers and careful purchasing decisions can increase VA without using inferior products.

As well as all of that, there are plenty of efficiency measures that the pressure of market competition can create that are restricted by the endlessly deep pockets of the public sector. Even in a fully mature market where all of the inherent cost savings have been found, the innovation found in the private sector can often invent an entirely new/better alternative, rather than just continuing to produce the same old services using the same old methods.

 

[monkeybarry]

If we were to truly open up all (or as many as possible) services to the market then there would be significant competition. That competition would allow businesses to compete on all kinds of measures, just as they do in the real world. You don't have to be the cheapest, you can be the best, have the shortest lead times, offer value added services, etc.

Your argument of risk makes no sense. Surely the fact that all of those services are so vital means we have to open them up to the market. To put them into the hands of a few lottery winners or, even worse, some government institutions being meddled with by clueless politicians is far more risky in my eyes.

The impact from the failure risk is clearly at the top end of the scale. Probability of course depends on many factors, many of which will be caused by market forces and therefore create instability within the service delivery.
So it makes complete sense. There is a risk of services not delivered if the company and/or market fails. Using your top line competitive market logic, there is supplementary risk of longetivty of service delivery (is business continuity where a company survives but struggles or service continuity where a company fails and no one takes its place or takes the competitive market approach of capitalising and keep the price at equilibrium but diluting the service).

Your argument shows a lack of basic micro economics - the fact we have to deliver the service does not mean the private sector will want to deliver the service, see the required profit margin in the service or have the appitite to deliver a product that it not possible to quickly ammend and/or ditch in response to challenging market conditions.

 

[scaramanga]

The impact from the failure risk is clearly at the top end of the scale. Probability of course depends on many factors, many of which will be caused by market forces and therefore create instability within the service delivery.
So it makes complete sense. There is a risk of services not delivered if the company and/or market fails

The risk of company failure is only really relevant if you plan to use the current model of singular, monolithic service providers covering the whole range of services in a particular area.

I'd hope nobody would use such a model in an open market situation - they would be grossly incompetent if they did.

Using your top line competitive market logic, there is supplementary risk of longetivty of service delivery (is business continuity where a company survives but struggles or service continuity where a company fails and no one takes its place or takes the competitive market approach of capitalising and keep the price at equilibrium but diluting the service).

If a company fails and no others take its place then we have the price wrong. Those signals would be obvious way in advance though, as there would be a lack of companies competing for the work.

If the service becomes diluted (see comprehensive schools for a good example) then an open market allows competitors with a better service to take business from those who are offering less.

Your argument shows a lack of basic micro economics - the fact we have to deliver the service does not mean the private sector will want to deliver the service, see the required profit margin in the service or have the appitite to deliver a product that it not possible to quickly ammend and/or ditch in response to challenging market conditions.

Private companies have, throughout history, offered just about every service and product there has been demand for. What makes that which is currently publicly provided so different that markets cannot do so?

As for the profitability of doing so, I have no doubt whatsoever that the pressure of competition would allow private businesses to offer the same levels of service for the same price at the very least. In all likelihood, competitive pressure would make the service both better and cheaper.

 

[thfcsteff]

I'm not advocating the cheapest service being the automatic choice, I'm simply advocating choice.

Even if we spend exactly the same amount on the services, the very existence of competition will make the services better, or faster or whatever we value most per pound.


That wasn't what I said. An inefficient company will fail. That's not the same as saying only inefficient companies fail.


That's not how business works.

My company is a very long way from the cheapest in our market, yet we still get a lot of work sent our way. I'd expect the same from the private sector providing public services - just allowing choice opens up the opportunity to choose a provider based on any measure of "better".

Equally your understanding of cost savings is flawed. Cheaper staff/raw material does not mean lower quality. I employ plenty of Polish workers on minimum wage who are twice as good as English staff on £10/HR. And close relationships with suppliers and careful purchasing decisions can increase VA without using inferior products.

As well as all of that, there are plenty of efficiency measures that the pressure of market competition can create that are restricted by the endlessly deep pockets of the public sector. Even in a fully mature market where all of the inherent cost savings have been found, the innovation found in the private sector can often invent an entirely new/better alternative, rather than just continuing to produce the same old services using the same old methods.

The concept of choice is excellent, however all too often, cheap trumps common sense (i.e. a reasonably priced and quality service/product).

I suspect the reason your company gets a lot of work despite not being the cheapest is because you are not just very good at whatever you do, but are fair in all ways; that is all anyone could ask for.

As for cost savings, I stand corrected on the labour issue as a blanket statement, however there are certain occupations where the 'minimum wage worker' simply cannot execute the task at hand proficiently enough to justify the saving. The fact that we have eager, minimum-wage workers from Europe who are better than English counterparts says much about the education system, as well as the hunger of needier people. In itself, that becomes a whole new discussion whereby we could look into how to improve the domestic workforce, etc. The latter part of that paragraph also bears some obvious truth, but you cannot pretend that 'close relationships' and 'careful purchasing decisions' are the cornerstone of every move made. Profit margin will always remain king in these situations, and I believe that is an issue. To be clear - I have no issue whatsoever with wealth, etc, but if wealth is accrued at the expense of a decent service/by using the cheapest components to 'get things done' then I think we are in trouble.

 

[monkeybarry]

When economies suffer downturns service and goods provision suffers and companies exit markets - rightly so.
But service provision must continue, irrespective of market conditions as it the social backbone of things like healthcare and justice (things that are essential to everyday life as well as economic stability) and need to transcend the market and be managed as a separate entity.
Of course there has to be changes to spending during prolonged poor market performance, but we shouldn't try and manage national finances like a household or company - a manageable deficit is not a bad thing. And a surplus is illogical unless it's achieved whilst also delivering a decent level of service and support for society.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

What's a stereotype, trots in councils or useless teachers? Both are true.

Local councils are full of trots purely because of selection bias. You need to be that kind of person to sign yourself up for the bureaucracy, meddling, ass kissing, etc that those roles require.

And useless teachers are out there and they are virtually unsackable. The vast majority are good at what they do and some are very good but no non-unionised profession would allow the terrible ones to continue for as long as they can. There was one lazy clam who worked in the same department as my wife about 8 years ago. She'd go of sick with "stress" for 6 months, return to work on reduced duties (teaching about two classes a week) just long enough to qualify for another 6 months of fully paid sick leave and then disappear again. That couldn't happen without a union - she'd have been gone in the first year.

Well that may all be true, but how does it make her a devotee of permanent revolution,(a Trotskyist)?

 

[scaramanga]

Well that may all be true, but how does it make her a devotee of permanent revolution,(a Trotskyist)?

She's a union member for starters - that's all they ever want.

Don't get yourself too caught up on semantics. Trot is just a general insult from those who understand economics aimed that those who would like to redistribute our wealth.