The most important is the principle of diversity. We will create a new presumption – backed up by new rights for public service users and a new system of independent adjudication – that public services should be open to a range of providers competing to offer a better service. Of course there are some areas – such as national security or the judiciary – where this wouldn't make sense. But everywhere else should be open to diversity; open to everyone who gets and values the importance of our public service ethos. This is a transformation: instead of having to justify why it makes sense to introduce competition in some public services – as we are now doing with schools and in the NHS – the state will have to justify why it should ever operate a monopoly.

 

This is vital to give meaning to another key principle: choice. Wherever possible we will increase it, whether it's patients having the freedom to choose which hospital they get treated in or parents having a genuine choice over their child's school.

 

And to give our principle of choice real bite, we will also create a new presumption that services should be delivered at the lowest possible level. Working from this presumption, we will devolve power even further. For example, we will give more people the right to take control of the budget for the service they receive. In this new world of decentralised, open public services it will be up to government to show why a public service cannot be delivered at a lower level than it is currently; to show why things should be centralised, not the other way round.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8337239...e-control.html#

 

Three questions: firstly, who exactly are we supposed to hold to account under these plans if a public service goes wrong. Right now, if the government makes a mess of the NHS, we can vote them out and force change; how exactly are we supposed to hold some faceless business to account if they make a mess of the NHS? Second, in three years' time, what exactly are we going to be paying Cameron and the rest of the government over £100,000 a year FOR, if, apparently, businesses and volunteers are going to be running everything? What this lot don't seem to understand is most British people think it's government's JOB to run our schools and health service. Thirdly, and most importantly, why exactly did Cameron make no mention of any of this during the election?

 

I don't think Cameron realises quite how angry people in the country are getting. In particular. even though most people don't understand the technical details of things like the NHS changes, there's a growing fury that we weren't told about them during the election. Coming after the expenses scandal, trust in politics is really plunging, because people are starting to realise that, just like the Lib Dems, the Tories too said one thing to get elected, and are now casually doing the exact opposite now they're safely in power.

 

You'd really have thought he'd learnt from the forests saga that we really don't appreciate this government trying to sell off stuff that's already ours (such as the NHS) to the highest bidder.

Besides, what happened to that promise that all major announcements would be made to the House Of Commons first?

 

The worst thing about these proposals is that they could be pretty much irreversible. Once services are opened up in this way, they will be subject to competition law which would make it very difficult to bring them back into public hands. Perhaps I should offer to be PM for £10K less than Cameron gets. Surely, he should then stand aside and let me take over.

Besides, what happened to that promise that all major announcements would be made to the House Of Commons first?

 

The worst thing about these proposals is that they could be pretty much irreversible. Once services are opened up in this way, they will be subject to competition law which would make it very difficult to bring them back into public hands. Perhaps I should offer to be PM for £10K less than Cameron gets. Surely, he should then stand aside and let me take over.

 

Absolutely, I mean, if he's really sincere about wanting to throw open ALL public services to competitive tender.... Hell, I'd do his job for 70K a year and a free tube pass...... And, I wouldn't try to claim "expenses" on stuff like internet, Sky Movies or second homes either....

You've all got it spot on... the entire principle of 'public' services is that they run with the interests of the PUBLIC central to them. Putting them up for grabs to the highest bidder means that they're now serving the same purpose as the private sector, and it's getting dangerously close to infringing on basic rights to education and healthcare.

 

The notion that anything can be bought/sold to the best business offer is the kind of ultra-capitalism that we probably should have seen coming. Unfortunately, I don't think that this is an issue which will see such public outrage as the tuition fees rise, the scrapping of EMA etc etc. Still, hopefully it'll be another nail in the coffin of the Coalition because if these changes go through there could be little done to reverse them.

.

Edited March 5, 201114 yr by ScottyEm

the entire principle of 'public' services is that they run with the interests of the PUBLIC central to them.

 

Yes, that is the principle, but is it practiced...?

 

Generally speaking, I don't advocate privatisation and I'm aware such services that have been privatised (like transport) are more unreliable than ever. BUT, my experience of dealing with staff who work in public sector jobs is, at best, inadaquate. I'm a sales rep for a rather well known private medical company and I wouldn't dream of dealing with clients and joe public in the same way I've been dealt with by public sector workers!

The answer to that though should be pushing forward a culture change, not just selling the whole thing off and washing their hands of it!

Yes, that is the principle, but is it practiced...?

 

Generally speaking, I don't advocate privatisation and I'm aware such services that have been privatised (like transport) are more unreliable than ever. BUT, my experience of dealing with staff who work in public sector jobs is, at best, inadaquate. I'm a sales rep for a rather well known private medical company and I wouldn't dream of dealing with clients and joe public in the same way I've been dealt with by public sector workers!

 

Don't get me wrong, there's a place for privatisation and businesses and competition - for instance, if all supermarkets were owned by the government and weren't in competition with eachother, and so could never go bankrupt, that would be awful, because there would be no incentive for staff to give customers good service, and no incentive for them to sell good-quality products, if they knew they'd be guaranteed survival no matter what they did anyway.

 

But, the way I see it, things like healthcare and education are just too important to be left to private businesses and markets. With competition, there's always losers - the difference being that, if someone "loses" in a battle for a laptop, they'll live; if someone in need of a kidney transplant loses in a battle for a kidney, they'll die.

Has anyone ever read the book 'Jennifer Government' by Max Barry? It's a dystopian novel where all organizations are run like corporations, including the police and the government. It's a cracking satirical novel if you ever get the chance to read it.

 

Perhaps Mr Cameron should read this book before committing to this flawed system.

Generally speaking, I don't advocate privatisation and I'm aware such services that have been privatised (like transport) are more unreliable than ever. BUT, my experience of dealing with staff who work in public sector jobs is, at best, inadaquate. I'm a sales rep for a rather well known private medical company and I wouldn't dream of dealing with clients and joe public in the same way I've been dealt with by public sector workers!

 

 

Well, you've said it yourself, you represent a PRIVATE medical company, you cant exactly expect the Public Sector staff who work in NHS hospitals to be all that welcoming of people such as yourself, there is very low morale in the NHS because of all the sh"t that's been going on since the 80s, and now of course with Lansley's "reforms" it's going to get even worse, obviously there's going to be hostility towards people who work in Private Healthcare...

I'm amazed Cameron is getting away with these plans - this is going further than even Thatcher dared. There are some things that should never, ever be privatised (and British Rail was one of those) but looks like he's going to make every service we require in this country crumble in favour of paying dividends to shareholders.

 

It's also a huge shame that the allegedly Labour government of 1997 - 2010 didn't even seem to consider the re-nationalisation of some services. This suggests that any public services that are lost in the next few years certainly will be gone forever.

I'm amazed Cameron is getting away with these plans - this is going further than even Thatcher dared. There are some things that should never, ever be privatised (and British Rail was one of those) but looks like he's going to make every service we require in this country crumble in favour of paying dividends to shareholders.

 

It's also a huge shame that the allegedly Labour government of 1997 - 2010 didn't even seem to consider the re-nationalisation of some services. This suggests that any public services that are lost in the next few years certainly will be gone forever.

 

You said it yourself Rich, "alleged" Labour Government... As soon as Blair mentioned an "admiration" for Thatcher that was it for me, that convinced me that he was no real Labour man.. New Labour just continued on with a lot of Neo-Liberal/Monetarist policies tbh, particularly where the economy was concerned, there was certainly no return to manufacturing, far too much faith put into "Financial Services" and banking sectors, and look where that got us, a Trillion-dollar bail-out of banks in the US and here, and the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression...

 

But Ca-Moron is quite possibly the biggest w*n**r this country has ever seen (well, apart from Clegg..) in living memory, it's quite obvious to me that he wants to destroy public services for no more than ideological reasons, I really hate the way he's using the deficit as a smoke-screen, banks like Barclays should not have been allowed to offset their losses against taxes, simple as, not in the current economic climate.. Brown or Ca-Moron could have changed that as a temporary measure, but they didn't, they could have imposed a "Robin Hood" Tax, but didn't, they could have made the likes of Vodafone pay their tax bill, but they didn't... As far as I'm concerned Tory and Labour are cretins who have fukked this country up since the 1980s...

 

Before the election Gideon Osborne said that he would stop banks from offsetting previous losses against tax. Since then someone must have reminded him that 50% of the Tory Party's income comes from the City.

Before the election Gideon Osborne said that he would stop banks from offsetting previous losses against tax. Since then someone must have reminded him that 50% of the Tory Party's income comes from the City.

 

Hmm, yes, quite.... MANY people said a LOT of things BEFORE the election though didn't they...? Bloody shame none of it was actually legally binding..... -_-

 

As I've said before, making manifestos legally binding is completely impractical, particularly with a coalition government.

As I've said before, making manifestos legally binding is completely impractical, particularly with a coalition government.

 

TBH, I see that as a pretty poor excuse mate, and I'm totally with Mark Thomas on this one... Just make promises more realistic and stop treating the electorate like f**ing 5-year olds.... You do realise the main reason for voter apathy dont you? Politicians promising one thing and delivering absolutely f**k all, and the impression that MPs are just in it for themselves and what they can get......

 

TBH, I see that as a pretty poor excuse mate, and I'm totally with Mark Thomas on this one... Just make promises more realistic and stop treating the electorate like f**ing 5-year olds.... You do realise the main reason for voter apathy dont you? Politicians promising one thing and delivering absolutely f**k all, and the impression that MPs are just in it for themselves and what they can get......

Which would make MPs even more lobby fodder than they are already. If a group of MPs vote agains their party policy and the government is defeated, who do you prosecute? If it's the rebel MPs, how does that enhance democracy? After all, a candidate who tells you they agree with every dot and comma of their party's manifesto is guaranteed to be lying.

 

You might as well do away with parliament altogether and allow the government to rule by ministerial fiat.

I don't think it's too much to ask that an MP sticks to the manifesto they stood on. For instance, Diane Abbott was one of the Labour government's serial rebels on things like civil liberties (most of which hadn't been pledged in the manifesto) or illegal wars - but she never voted against a single Labour manifesto commitment in Parliament, ever. If you don't agree with a key plank of your party's manifesto, you're free to stand as an independent with your own policies, after all.

 

I don't know if it would be practical to enshrine in law that a government has to stick to every single manifesto commitment, but I wouldn't have any problem with steps being taken to make sure parties can't do things that are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of manifesto commitments within a year of a general election (such as carrying out a massive NHS reorganisation when you'd explicitly promised not to, or trebling tuition fees when you'd explicitly promised to vote against it).

But what is the point in having votes in parliament if all government MPs are under a legal obligation to vote for their party's manifesto? And what is an MP supposed to do if a large number of their constituents want them to vote against their party's policy?

But what is the point in having votes in parliament if all government MPs are under a legal obligation to vote for their party's manifesto?

 

There's obviously always going to be day-to-day issues coming up, which weren't issues during the election campaign, on which MPs can vote according to their conscience (such as wars) - but, if you're elected on a manifesto, then, as far as I'm concerned, you've effectively made yourself a delegate on all the pledges you stood on - if anything, government backbench MPs' role is to actually make sure ministers stick to their manifesto pledges, rather than having the power to break their promises themselves.

 

And what is an MP supposed to do if a large number of their constituents want them to vote against their party's policy?

 

Has there ever been a MASSIVE public backlash against something that was promised in a winning party's manifesto? Telling people who are complaining that "you voted for it" would be a pretty disarming argument. After all, the things that the Coalition have done that have provoked the biggest public backlash so far - tuition fees, forests and VAT - were things that neither party had given a hint of wanting to do in the election.