Posts Tagged ‘Bureaucracy’

Vox Political on Nick Gibb Address to Teacher’s Conference

April 6, 2016

Mike over at Vox Political ran this story from the Groan, which reported the kind and courteous welcome Nick Gibb got when he spoke to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers at their conference in Liverpool. Of course, I’m being ironic when I say that it was ‘kind and courteous’. In fact that they jeered him. And I don’t blame them. What Gibb said was pure rubbish.

The Tories are, of course, determined to turn 17,000 primary schools in England into academies. Gibb made the usual attempt to try to justify this massive privatisation to the Tory party’s corporate backers by saying that it would lead to an improvement in quality. He told his audience of educational professionals that if they spoke to the headmasters, who had become heads of the academy chains, they would hear that academy schools were flourishing. Because they’re professionally led.

This is, of course, complete twaddle. The same could also be said of the state schools under LEA control. They’re also managed by professionals, in the sense that the Local Education Authority is staffed by people, who earn their living from managing schools. Just as the actual teaching and administrative staff in the schools themselves, the teachers, teaching assistants, school secretaries, dinner ladies and caretakers are also educational professionals. After all, the work in education.

Mike has already pointed out, along with very many other bloggers, time and again, that standards in academies and free schools are actually worse than state schools. In the comments to the article, he reproduces the following graphic, which shows how the number of academies which are rated ‘inadequate’ far outstrip LEA schools.

leaVacademyschools

In fact, 25 academies last year had to be handed back to state administration because their standards were so bad. Charlie Stayt made a valiant attempt to get Thicky Nicky Morgan to admit this, but the minister with the mad staring eyes just carried on chuntering about how terrible it was that schools were being left under the control of local authorities, which continued to inflict their low educational standards on their impressionable young charges.

The opposite is true. Of course, the government likes the idea of privatising, are part-privatising the education system, because it hands over a very lucrative state enterprise to their corporate backers. They, and their big business paymasters also like it, because it means that private industry can set the terms of pay and conditions much lower than in the state sector. For example, it was the case that to teach in a state school, you should have a teaching qualification. You either did a teaching degree, or you completed a normal degree, and then took a PGCE. I don’t know if the situation’s changed now, but a few years ago you didn’t need a teaching qualification to teach in a private school. This is, I should repeat, private schools rather than academies. But my point remains. Pay and conditions for the teaching staff are lower, and the staff themselves may not be as well qualified as their counterparts in the state sector.

So where does the money spent on academy schools actually go? The obvious answer is the pockets of the senior managers and shareholders, who are obviously looking forward to doing very well out of it, thank you very much. And this also gives the lie to the claim that private enterprise is somehow more efficient and less bureaucratic. Clearly it isn’t, as there’s a whole bureaucracy in the academy chains themselves, as well as the extra expense of giving lucrative dividends to the shareholders.

No doubt as the teaching unions continue to voice their opposition to the privatisation of England’s schools, the Tories will start to bang their usually drum about how ‘loony-lefty’ teachers are threatening their pupils’ future with their doctrinaire opposition to the government’s wonderful new policy. And here again, the truth is the precise opposite. Teachers teach because they enjoy imparting knowledge. Not always successfully, and very often not to receptive pupils. But they do it because they find it rewarding. And, in general, they are very concerned to make sure that their pupils perform to the best of their ability, and get the best available opportunities for their education. It was the teaching unions in the 1930s who kept up the pressure for compulsory state secondary education. But you are very definitely not going to hear that from the likes of Nick Gibb or Thicky Nicky Morgan.

Forget the government’s hype. The conversion of the primary schools into academies in England will lead to worse standards. It’s the teachers opposing the government’s reforms, who are really trying to maintain and improve them.

Mike’s article is at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/04/04/teachers-heckle-schools-minister-over-academy-plans/#comments. Go and see what he says.

Advertisements

Vox Political: Report Recommends Commissioner to Protect People with Learning Difficulties

February 23, 2016

This is another fascinating piece from Vox Political. According to the Grauniad, Stephen Bubb, the author of a report on abuse of people with learning difficulties at a care home near Bristol, has recommended that a special commissioner should be appointed to protect them. See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/02/23/appoint-individual-to-protect-rights-of-the-vulnerable-report-suggests/

It’s an interesting idea. The piece points out that there is already a children’s commissioner, following the horrific maltreatment and death of Victoria Climbie. Continuing the Classical theme from my last post about Boris Johnson, there’s a kind of precedent for all this in Ancient Greece. I can remember reading in one of the books at College that one of the Greek city states – probably Athens – had an ‘archon for women’ – effectively a ‘minister’, to investigate causes of complaint raised by them. This followed a women’s strike or strikes similar to the sex strike portrayed in Sophocles’ Lysistrata. There was, I believe, also radical working class Communist movements, which formed the basis for another ancient Greek play, The Ekkleziae. In the case of women, today that’s resulted in calls for greater representation of women in parliament and politics generally, but that simply wasn’t considered in the very patriarchal political environment of the ancient world.

It’s an interesting idea, but I honestly don’t know how effective such a commissioner would be, even if one could be set up. The Tories don’t like bureaucracy, and especially not when it deals with disadvantaged groups. Mike’s undoubtedly correct when he says that there’s little chance of such a commissioner being appointed under Cameron. I feel that if a commissioner were appointed, it would only be a cosmetic measure. The institutions within the civil service which are supposed to be the government in check seem to be all too willing to bow to their every whim. For example, Mike had to fight long and hard to get the DWP to concede that it had to release the figures of the number of people with disabilities, who had died after being found fit for work. The Department did so only exceedingly grudgingly, and the Information Commissioner at many points seemed very willing to accede to the government’s wishes, rather than get them to release the information. Privacy and civil liberties groups have also expressed alarm at the way the government watchdogs, which are supposed to protect us from the massive expansion of the surveillance state and the intrusive acquisition of personal data by the state, have done no such thing, or have made only the flimsiest of protests.

It’s a good idea, but I’m pessimistic about how it would work out. Even if Cameron appointed one in the first place. And I doubt he would. I think the home at the centre of the abuse scandal is privately run. Cameron definitely does not want anyone to take any action that might impugn the mighty efficacy of private enterprise. It’s why, after all, Nikki Morgan, the education minister, refused to answer Charlie Stayt’s question about how many privately run academies have had to be taken back into state management. The last thing Cameron and his crony capitalists want is another report stating that private enterprise doesn’t necessarily mean quality care, and the expansion of the powers of the state. The Tories are, after all, the party of Thatcher, and that’s what she hated the most. The frontiers of the state have to be rolled back, and who cares if the poor and the disabled are abused and victimised.

Robin Cook’s Attack on Private Health Insurance for the NHS

March 15, 2015

252299_486936058042594_609527550_n

I’ve blogged several times about the threat to the NHS from the Tories and the Lib Dems. There are 92 Conservative and Lib Dem ministers, who advocate the privatisation of the Health Service, and who stand personally to gain from it. They include Iain Duncan Smith, the current minister for culling the poor, the sick and the old. Andrew Lansley, the current health minister, has openly stated he is in favour of privatising it. So has Nigel Farage, and the Unterkippergruppenfuhrer, Paul Nuttall.

I blogged earlier today about the Fuhrage’s forked tongue about the NHS, and how he follows the Tory policy going all the way back to Thatcher of promising to defend it while secretly plotting how to sell it off. In the 1980s, Thatcher set up a review into the NHS and its funding. This so alarmed Labour’s Robin Cook, that he wrote a Fabian pamphlet, Life Begins at 40: In Defence of the NHS, attacking possible proposals to privatise the Health Service.

Previous reviews had given the NHS a clean bill of health. The extremely high quality of the NHS and its doctors was recognised by the heads of American healthcare firms: Dr Marvin Goldberg, chief executive of the AMI health group, told a parliamentary select committee that the Health Service provides ‘outstanding health care and British NHS hospitals are at least as good as those in America while British doctors are better.’

The then Conservative MP for Newbury, Michael McNair-Wilson, also testified to the effectiveness of the NHS. He had suffered kidney failure. He had private health insurance, but it did not cover operations such as the one he needed because of the expense. He said ‘I have cost the NHS tens of thousands of pounds – much more than I could have afforded privately … Had my treatment depended on my ability to pay, I would not be alive today.’

Pre-NHS Britain: Some Areas Completely Without Hospitals

Cook’s pamphlet also graphically described the patchwork state of healthcare in Britain before the NHS. In London, where there were plenty of paying customers, there could be hospitals in neighbouring streets. Out in the poorer British provinces, there were hardly any, and many operations were carried out not by surgeons but by GPs. He cites Julian Tudor Hart’s book, A New Kind of Doctor, to show how bad this could be. Hart described how he joined one of those practices in Kettering. One patient was left under anaesthetic as the London specialist operating on him was called away to continue a stomach operation on a London patient, which the operating GP had been unable to complete.

Cook was deeply concerned that the Tories’ review would not be at all interested in improving quality, only in opening up the NHS to the market and privatisation.

Cook on Private Health Insurance

One of the issues he tackled in the pamphlet was the possibility of the introduction of private health insurance. This covers two pages and a column and a bit in the original pamphlet. This is what he wrote, though emphases and paragraph titles are mine.

The mechanism proposed to square the incompatibility of health care with the market is insurance. All market approaches to the NHS submitted to the Review stress the case for much wider private insurance and almost as frequently propose subsidies to boost it.

Insurance-Based Systems Encourage Expensive Treatment

The first thing to be said is that private insurance does not offer to health care the alleged benefits of the discipline of the market place. At the point when the individual requires treatment he or she has already paid the premiums and has no incentive not to consume as expensive a treatment as can be reconciled with the policy. The position of the doctor is even more prejudiced in that he or she has every incentive to obtain as much as possible from the insurance company by recommending the most expensive treatment. Both patient and the doctor are in a conspiracy to make the consultation as costly as possible, which is a perverse outcome for a proposal frequently floated by those who claim to be concerned about cost control.

Insurance-Based Systems Encourage Unnecessary Surgery

The compulsion in an insurance-based system to maximise the rate of return is the simple explanation why intervention surgery is so much more often recommended in the United States. For example, the incidence of hysterectomy there is four times the British rate. This is unlikely to reflect higher morbidity rates but much more likely to reflect the greater willingness of doctors on a piece-work basis to recommend it, despite the operative risks and in the case of this particular operation the documented psychological trauma. I can guarantee that an expansion of private insurance will certainly meet the objective on increasing expenditure on health care, but it is not equally clear that the money will be spent effectively.

Insurance-Based Systems Require Expensive bureaucracy to Check Costs

One direct diversion of resources imposed by any insurance-based scheme is the necessity for accountants and clerks and lawyers to assess costs and process claims. The NHS is routinely accused of excessive bureaucracy, frequently I regret to say by the very people who work within it and are in a position to know it is not true. Expenditure in the NHS is lower as a proportion of budget than the health system of any other nation, lower as a proportion of turnover than the private health sector within Britain, and come to that, lower than the management costs of just about nay other major enterprise inside or outside the public sector. I am not myself sure that this is a feature of which we should be proud. ON the contrary it is evidence of a persistent undermanaging of the NHS, which is largely responsible for its failure to exploit new developments in communication, cost control and personnel relations. Nevertheless, there is no more pointless expansion of administrative costs than the dead-weight of those required to police and process and insurance-based system. These costs would be considerable.

Forty per cent of personal bankruptcies in the US are attributable to debts for medical care

Part of this additional cost burden is incurred in the task of hunting down bad debts, which does not contribute in any way to the provision of health care. Forty per cent of personal bankruptcies in the US are attributable to debts for medical care, a salutary reminder of the limitations set to insurance cover. These limitations have three dimensions.

Insurance Cover Excludes Chronic and Long-Term Sick, and the Elderly

First, insurance cover generally excludes those conditions which are chronic and therefore expensive or complicated and therefore expensive. Standard exclusions in British insurance policies are arthritis, renal dialysis, multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy. Most people do not require substantial medical care until after retirement. Most insurance cover excludes the very conditions for which they are then most likely to require treatment. Short of retirement, the most expensive health care required by the majority of the population is maternity care, which is also excluded by the majority of insurance policies.

Private Healthcare Limits Amount of Care due to Cost, not Need

Secondly, insurance cover is generally restricted by upper limits which are arbitrary in every sense other than financial. I recently met a psychiatric consultant to a private clinic, who was prepared to discuss candidly the ethical dilemmas of treating patients whose financial cover is fixed at five weeks of residential care, but whose response to treatment may indicate that a longer period of hospitalisation is desirable.

Private Health Care Geared to Selling to Healthy not Sick

Thirdly, insurance cover is further limited by exclusion of those most likely to claim on it. I am often struck at the sheer healthiness of the patients who illustrate the promotional literature of BUPA and PPP who appear in such pink of good cheer and fitness that it is difficult to figure out why they are in a hospital bed. These models are though in a sense most suitable for the purpose as the objective of insurance companies is to attract the healthy. They therefore claim the right to screen for the unhealthy and reject them from cover. This discriminatory approach was defended earlier this month by the managing director of WPA, Britain’s third biggest health insurer, on the principled grounds that it meant ‘essentially healthy people are not penalised by unhealthy people.’ This statement has the advantage of originality in that it perceives healthy people as the vulnerable group and proposes a market remedy that protects them from the inconvenient costs of the unhealthy.

Given this limited character of health insurance in Britain, the private sector is patently not in a position to substitute for the NHS and to be fair most directors of BUPA or PPP would be horrified at the notion of accepting the comprehensive, open-ended liabilities of the NHS. It is therefore perplexing that so much effort in and around the Review appears to be addressed to the issue of how the private sector may be expanded rather than how the public sector may be improved. Two major devices are being canvassed to boost private cover-tax relief on private cover or opt-out from public cover, or for all I know both of them together. Both would be a major mistake.

Tax Relief on Private Healthcare

Tax relief is open to the obvious objection that it targets help most on those who need it least – the healthy who are most likely to be accepted for private cover and the wealthy whose higher tax rates make relief most vulnerable. These are curious priorities for additional health expenditure.

Tax Relief Does Not Create Higher Spending on Health Care

Moreover, even in its own terms of stimulating higher spending on health, tax relief is likely to prove an ineffective mechanism. If for example the average premium is £200 pa the cost of tax relief for 6 million insured persons will be £300 million. The numbers under insurance need to increase by a third before the increased spending on premiums matches the cost of the subsidy and provides any net increase in health spending. Up to that point it will always produce a larger rise in health spending to increase the budget of the NHS by a sum equivalent to the cost of tax relief.

It is apparently being mooted that these objections could be circumvented by limiting the tax relief to the elderly. At this point the proposal moves from the perverse to the eccentric. This restriction targets help for private insurance on the very group for whom private cover is most inappropriate as their most likely health needs are the ones most likely to be excluded from cover. Only a moment’s reflection is required on the multiple ways in which we need to expand our health provision for the elderly to expose the hopeless irrelevance of tax relief as the solution for them.

Opt-Out Penalises those who Remain in the System

Opt-out is even more objectionable. The basic problem with opt-out is that it requires the payment towards the NHS of every individual to be expressed in a manner that gives him or her something to opt-out from. The principal attraction to Leon Brittan of his proposal for an NHS insurance contribution appeared to be precisely that it paved the way for opting out ( A New Deal for Health Care, Conservative Political Centre,, 1988). Nor is this inconvenience confined to the need for a whole new element in the tax system. If one in ten of the population chose to opt out, it would be remaining nine out of ten who would have to prove they were not opted-out when they went along to seek treatment. With the new contributions comes a requirement to maintain a record of payment of them, and presumably a mechanism for credits to those not in work but who do not wish to be counted has having opted out of the NHS.

Private Healthcare Undermine NHS as Universal System

The more fundamental objection both these proposals is they explicitly threaten the NHS as universal health service catering for everyone. Moreover, they threaten its universality in the worst possible way, by encouraging those with higher incomes and lower health needs to get out, leaving behind the less affluent and the less fit. In this respect such an approach to the NHS would be a piece with the Government’s strategy of erosion towards the rest of the social services-housing, pensions, and now education, where the Government has encouraged those who could afford it to opt-out of public provision, leaving behind the poor who could be expected to put6 up with a poor service.

This is the reality of the private healthcare system which Cameron, Clegg, Farage and the rest of the Right wish to introduce. It is expensive, bureaucratic, does not stimulating further spending, and excludes those with the most acute and expensive medical need, especially the elderly.

And the Tories and their counterparts in UKIP and the Lib Dems know it. Why else would the Tories spend their time trying to deny what they’re doing? Why does Farage appear to be advocating retaining the NHS, while arguing for an insurance based system, like America? It’s because they know that private medicine does not provide the solutions they claim. It is only source of further enrichment to them and their corporate donors.

And since Cook wrote that pamphlet, more than 20 per cent of all Americans can no longer afford their healthcare. It’s why the firms are trying to get their feet under the table over here.

Don’t let them. Miliband has promised to reverse the privatisation of the NHS. Support him in the coming election.

From 2007: Suppressed Government Report into Failures of PFI

February 1, 2015

One of the first elements in the gradual privatisation of the NHS was the Private Finance Initiative. Under it, private companies were awarded contracts for the construction and maintenance of the hospitals they built partly through private finance. it was a way of keeping the cost of hospital construction and maintenance off the government books. The downside was that the costs, although hidden, were still massive, meaning that the public was saddled with exorbitant costs for many years, indeed decades to come. Furthermore, the financial risks were never spread evenly. If a private consortium ran into trouble and could no longer make a profit from the deal, it was left to the taxpayer to bail them out.

In their issue for the 21st June – 8th July 2007, Private Eye carried this story about a government report that had been suppressed after it severely criticised the Private Finance Initiative for its numerous and disastrously expenses failures.

The Hospital Report They Didn’t Want You To Read
PFI, the Untold Story

A damning report on hospitals built under the private finance initiative, prepared by the National Audit Office (NAO) but never published or show to Parliament, has been obtained by Private Eye under the Freedom of Information Act.

In 2005 the NAO announced that it was looking into the record of PFI hospitals, but a year ago mysteriously cancelled the study – without revealing that it had already written a hugely detailed 90-page report on the subject. The move came just weeks after Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt had announced a review of the £12bn worth of hospital PFI deals then in the pipeline, in the face of mounting evidence that PFI was unaffordable and unworkable with other Labour health reforms. The last thing she needed was a critical report on the record of the PFI hospitals already up and running.

The NAO insists it was not pressured into pulling the report, entitled The Operational Record of the First Wave of PFI Hospitals, though it refuses to disclose any details of its discussions with the Department of Health on the subject. It claims the “evidence collected was too mixed and not sufficiently conclusive to justify a report to parliament”. Really? Eye readers (and MPs) are invited to study the principal findings and judge for themselves.

The ‘Risk’ Factor

In all 17 hospitals whose costs were looked at, PFI was judged to be a few pounds cheaper when compared to how much it would have cost to build or refurbish the hospital under conventional procurement. But at 15 hospitals this was only after a spurious financial “risk factor” had been applied to the public sector alternative. The factor varied from 1 percent to 22 percent of the cost but was always just enough to make PFI look cheaper. The NAO overlooks the obvious fiddling and swallows the alleged “similarity of costs” without question.

Not So Grand Designs

A comparison of design quality found the PFI hospitals overall, slightly worse than non-PFI ones. On five out of six criteria they were below “minimum acceptable standard” and especially pisspoor architecturally. Although the non-PFI ones used for comparison were mostly 20 to 30 years older and much work has been done on improving hospital building standards in the meantime, this seems to have passed the PFI industry by.

Bed-Hopping Mad

Seventy percent of the PFI hospitals had fewer beds than the facilities they replaced, but all save one had higher rates of occupancy. Indeed, in 70 percent of cases the PFI bed occupancy rate was higher than the officially recommended maximum of 85 percent. Above this figure peak admissions are more difficult to handle, men and women can’t always be separated and infection control is compromised.

The cause of the problem, the NAO found, was that “greater efficiency designed to increase patient throughput … has not yet been fully achieved.” In other words, such is the expense of PFI that in order to produce a remotely affordable deal, unrealistic assumptions about needing fewer beds were made (with the help of financial consultants anxious to get the deal through and secure their success fees).

Three of the PFI hospitals have already had to build extra facilities as a result, putting millions more on the cost of their deals every year. Clinicians are understandably miffed: two thirds said that “affordability constraints” had led to “design compromise”, including at University Hospital Durham where floor area had to be reduced, leading to “shortage of space … and a lack of ventilation”.

Feeling the Heat

“One particular problem”, the auditors noted, “is summer overheating”. PFI hospitals fall well below minimum standards. “At one PFI hospital the contract manager had recently recorded temperatures of over 40 degrees C in the wards during the height of summer,” said the auditors. As the whole premise of PFI and the dodgy value for money calculations is the transfer of risk, solving this problem might be thought to be down to the PFI company. But no. When the auditors visited “it had not been agreed who would bear the cost”.

Cleaning Up

Among the most alarming findings was that “the cost of cleaning PFI hospitals is higher than in non-PFI hospitals and the quality of service is lower”. Not exactly surprising, but with clear evidence that poor hygiene standards increase the incidence of MRSA, C. difficile and other deadly super bugs – exactly the sort of finding Hewitt would not have wanted splashed across the papers last year.

The problem isn’t just cost-cutting by the PFI companies and the cleaning firms they employ: the report noted that “only a fifth of ward managers at PFI hospitals … had sufficient powers of direction over cleaners”. And in the bureaucratic nightmare of PFI, doing something about it isn’t easy either because improved standards “are not necessarily reflected in the service specification”, ie contract.

Making improvements is “likely to require the requesting of a service variation”. Great news for lawyers, not so comforting for patients.

Failure? Fine By Us

When things go wrong it’s invariably the hospital, not the PFI company, that suffers. Two thirds of hospital managers felt that they couldn’t impose sufficient financial penalties on the companies to motivate the PFI company to do its job.

And that’s if difficulties are reported in the first place. Many problems go unpunished as busy nurses have better things to do than hang on the phone to a remote help-desk. “They would often therefore either ignore the failure or deal with it themselves,” say the auditors, with the result that only 30 percent of trusts report “most” service failures. Even if they do, the PFI companies determine how much to fine themselves: “The data for calculating deductions is usually generated by the helpdesk and is therefore the responsibility of the PFI contractor.”

When whole areas of PFI hospitals become unavailable most trusts think the payments they can withhold aren’t enough to make the PFI company return the building to use quickly. In one case, a water leak shut an operating theatre for two days at a loss of 33 operations and a cost to the trust of £24,750. The PFI company was docked less than £5,000.

Red Tape, Red Faces

Anyone who thinks the public sector is tied up in red tape should look at what happens when a PFI hospital needs the private company it’s relying on to make any changes.

If it needs a new noticeboard, say, it can’t just ask a handyman to put one up. It has to get a quote for “supply and fit and life cycle maintenance” (£860 for five of them from one PFI company, since you ask). The NAO report leaves a large space for a “flow diagram of the process for making a minor change”. Unsurprisingly clinicians reported infuriating delays. And it’s not cheap: at Norfolk and Norwich 1,600 “minor “works” (putting up a shelf, changing a plug, etc) came in at £1.2m – £750 a throw. For any bigger change, like altering the use of a room, the process is more cumbersome still. And if it costs more than £5,000, the lawyers and even bankers have to be pulled in as their “risk profile” might be affected.

As a trust manager from Durham put it: “It is not a competitive market, the mark-up by the contractor and the [PFI company] increase the costs, and there is not the incentive for them to come up with affordable solutions.

And the Good News Is …

It’s not all bad news. On the odd incidental like “security” PFI hospitals were judged better. And the report repeats the Treasury’s favoured view of PFI: “The first wave of PFI hospitals were very largely delivered to time and budget.”
Yet again, however, this conclusion is based on the cost of the hospitals once the contract was signed, after which it can’t go up. If the prices when the deals were given the go-ahead were considered, a more appropriate comparison, the auditors would have seen increases of between 40 percent and 230 percent as huge price increases emerged during contract negotiations.

Despite the evidence of innumerable surveys, reviews, field visits to hospitals, independently commissioned technical evaluations, questionnaires and focus groups, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds, Parliament, apparently, doesn’t need to know about the bed shortages, substandard buildings, poor cleaning, labyrinthine bureaucracy and extra costs that come with PFI.

Patricia Hewitt’s own review of hospital PFI deals duly concluded that, subject to some trimming here and there, they could go ahead. Nobody was able to point to damning NAO findings that PFI is about as useful in a hospital as a surgeon with the shakes.

Before the last election, Osborne stated that he would end PFI once the Tories got in power. This is one of the promises that the Tory party has broken. Not only has not ended PFI, he actually increased it and authorised more projects. This probably shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, as PFI was originally a Tory idea, put forward by Peter Lilley as a way of opening up the NHS to private enterprise.

It needs to be closed down, and the Tories removed from office before they can privatise anymore of the NHS.

From 2012: Private Eye on Incompetence, Profiteering Bureaucracy and Racism in G4S

April 12, 2014

This is also from the Eye for the 20th April – 3rd of May 2012.

Outsaucing News

G4S, which earns most of its money from the taxpayer, has docked its chief executive Nick Buckle’s bonus over a messed-up bid to take over a Danish cleaning company that cost his firm £55m last year. But never fear: he still get his basic £1.9m salary.

G4s will also still have plenty of cash to pay for the cock-up, plus Buckles’ inflated pay7, since it keeps winning major public service contracts here in the UK.

Last month the UK Border Agency awarded it “prime” contracts worth around £300m to run asylum transport and accommodation in two of the five national regions. In true Big Society fashion, G4S will itself outsource much of this work to local charities and companies (much as workfare schemes are farmed out by A4E).

Despite the extra layers of management and contracting, not to mention the bumper executive pay and the profits demanded by shareholders that such deals entail, UKBA still thinks it will save £150m through the £620m contracts without services suffering.

In January, the home affairs select committee concluded, after a string of scandals including the death in G4S custody of Jimmy Mubenga and racist behaviour among guards, that the government must not “wash its hands of responsibility for detainees just because the service is contracted out”. But by outsourcing prime contracts to bungling Buckles and co a few weeks later, and for his firm to then subcontract the work in return for a decent fee, this seems precisely what the government is doing.

This shows what such Public-Private Partnerships entail: layers of bureaucracy, in which different companies and their shareholders expect a profit, which would be unacceptable in a state-owned enterprise; inflated salaries for chief officers, and massive cuts and savings for the funding allocated for the service, resulting in poor performance. But then, the actual quality of service seems to be very much a secondary consideration. The real reason for such partnerships is to give state contracts to private enterprises run by Tory donors and providing jobs for Tory politicians and apparatchiks.

How can disabled people appeal if not told the assessment result?

July 27, 2013

More evidence of the weird, Kafkaesque world of Atos and the DWP, in which you are not told of the decision against you, in order to prevent you appealing. If the system by which Atos and the DWP judge and deal with disability benefit claimants was applied to the justice system, it would be denounced as a ‘kangaroo court’. Comparisons would be made to Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia. As the people being abused in this way are the disabled, and its part of the benefits system, it seems to the media to be perfectly acceptable and of no interest whatsoever.

Benefit tales

2 years ago I was placed in the (disability benefit) Work Related Activity Group without a medical so have to attend job centre every 6 months, my advisor is great and has stated that she is not qualified to over rule my psychiatrist, psychologist or GP so basically we chat for 10-15mins thats it. In late April/early may this year I got the dreaded med form to fill in waited till last minute took all info I could get from what is posted on FB and sent it in, I have been waiting in torture since. This week I had my meetin with my job centre advisor and she asked if I had been for a medical , I said no but told her about the form, she then told me i had been placed in the wrag group again for 2 years, I stated it was bad that they…

View original post 120 more words