David Cameron praises public service ethos

No time to post my own thoughts on David Cameron's public service speech but - in response to Henry Edward-Bancroft's request - here begins a thread for you all to pitch in.  Here is a key quote from DC's remarks:

"The Conservative Party has always focused, rightly, on giving taxpayers value for money and reducing burdens on the state.  But in our legitimate desire to drive out government waste and improve public sector efficiency, we have sometimes risked giving the impression that we see those who work in the public sector as burdens on the state rather than dedicated professionals who work hard to improve the quality of people’s lives.  Anyone working in the public services could easily have heard a pretty negative message from my Party: “there’s too many of you, you’re lazy and you’re inefficient.”  This is far from how I see things."

Here is a pdf of the full speech and a link to Iain Dale's commentary on the pre-briefing.

Comments

[William Norton]

Very sensible and timely remarks.

Reminds me of the argument that the Party couldn't/shouldn't advocate trade union reform in the late 1970s because we would need the votes of trade union members to regain power. The point was, of course, that trade union reform was all about helping members of trade unions regain control of their unions - and because the antics of the union leaders were a betrayal of the best interests of their members. From memory, the idea of the union reforms was always very popular with rank and file members whenever anyone polled them.

It's the same here. No one denies the importance or existence of a genuine public service ethos - but isn't the system actively stifling that ethos? To pluck an example at random, a nurse or doctor working XXX hours per week is being let down by the zillions of managers and bureaucrats just as much as the patient waiting for an operation.

DC's remarks that the Party will advocate anti-waste reforms in the public sector but not in a spirit of hostility towards public sector front-line workers is exactly the correct line to take.

I can't see anyone disagreeing with it. (Go on, chaps, prove me wrong....)

[Chad]

Excellent stuff - pretty much as we discussed last week about the real Tory clause 4 - embracing the public sector.

[William Norton]

Chad: the real Tory clause 4 - embracing the public sector.

No, I don't think this marks a decisive break or reversal of anything. I think it's a very well-phrased and tactically astute reminder of what was there already.

Tell me, Nr Noble, how are you getting on raising signatures on your nomination form for Bromley? I "Imagine" you're having fun.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Please don't provoke him William.

[Chad]

William, come on, keep on subject.

Take a look at my site if you want an update. As I noted, I really wanted the Tories to field a BetterOffOut supporter (the cross-party eurosceptic campaign), but as they have not, I decided to stand. However, I found out last night that Nigel Farage is also a BOO supporter, so being a cross-party initiative, I have stepped aside to ensure two BOO's don't stand against one another. Eurosceptics are learning to not in-fight!

Anyway, back to the subject. I agree that Cameron's speech is not a reversal, but he is dipping his toe in the water. He knows full well that he will have to embrace the public sector to win an election. It is the Tory clause 4, causing many to choke on the suggestion. So this was a welcome, first step in this direction.

[Adrian Owens]

The officers in my local council work incredibly hard including responding in depth to e-mails on a Saturday afternoon and Sunday. Not something senior mamangement in many private sector companies would do.

It's timely for David Cameron to point this out, while at the same time indicating that we will not be bound by the failure of Prezza to reform the outdated public sector pension system.

[Le Nerd]

"There’s too many of you, you’re lazy and you’re inefficient." This is far from how I see things.

Precisely how far is 'there's too many of you' from Dave's way of thinking? He's certainly not thinking what I'm thinking, as far as the number of extra bureaucrats employed by Labour since 1997 is concerned.

[Stephen B]

I agree with Adrian.

I feel resentful towards those parts of the public sector that expect me to work later in life so I can pay their pensions. It makes me seriously wonder why I bother running a company when I could just get a job with a local authority and have my future assured.

[Paul Kennedy]

"The officers in my local council work incredibly hard including responding in depth to e-mails on a Saturday afternoon and Sunday." 13:31

And I assume being paid to do so, or working their hours in a way that suits them as part of a flexible working arrangement?
I seem to recall working some odd times when I was a Senior Manager in the private sector!

I am sure many people employed in the public sector are hardworking and professional in what they are doing, the question to be asked is, do we actually want them doing the work in the first place?

[Wat Tyler]

As an ex-civil Servant, I'm bound to agree there are many good people in the public sector. But the problem is the old system thing.

In particular, the public sector finds it impossible to replicate the choice and competition that drives private sector excellence- administered choice frameworks inevitably end in the bureaucratic horrors of Labour's hospital and school "choice" systems.

So Dave's right to praise good public servants-who could disagree? And he's also right to say ministers should not blame the results of their rubbish policies on those forced to implement them.

But let's not confuse that with idea we could somehow make Big Government work. Our managers would be no better than Labour's, and we're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise

[Edward]

Exactly Wat. There are many good, over-worked and underpaid public servants. There are also too many of them, they're collectively lazy and they're in efficient. Surely this is an example of where the "and theory" could have been better applied?

[Chad]

We may not like it, but Cameron is being consistent with his big government approach and most of you are happy with the polls.

You can't have it both ways.

As Nick Robinson has neatly written today, the big two are engaged in political cross-dressing.

[David Belchamber]

This could be a very fruitful debate and DC is to be congratulated for pointing out what ought to be self-evident - that the private sector is not always superior to the public sector.
What both have to aim for is "best practice"; what both must remember (or learn) is that individuals are employed to work "in the best interests of that organisation".
However, it must be said (especially with reference to pension reform) that we need greater equality and fairness between the two sectors; that might mean higher salaries for the public sector but it also means equal retirement ages, the cessation of final salary pension schemes, the acceptance of accountability, no "privilege days", no taking sick pay entitlement unless sick etc.
We must break down the "them and us" feeling that exists, as it does especially between state and independent schools.
We have to accept, as DC suggests, that there is unfairness, laziness and inept management in the private sector as well, and it is in the country's overall interests to encourage best practice in both sectors.

[Paul Kennedy]

"that the private sector is not always superior to the public sector." 14:12

Very true.

"that there is unfairness, laziness and inept management in the private sector as well." 14:12

That is also very true, but in the case of the private sector, market forces deal with it, the businesses go "bust", whilst in the state sector, more and more taxpayers money is used to prop it up.

[RobC]

Since 1997 Labour has moved into the cenre ground and then in the centre-right. The Tories response was to shift further to the right. Cameron has been the first leader to spot the void in the political spectrum that this has left us with, and is fighting Blair on all fronts, not just the right.

Cameron has also spotted that the public sector workers vote, and that few are likely to vote Tory is he makes sweeping cmmnets on cutting public spending and thus placing their jobs at risk.

[David Belchamber]

As a follow-up, one should add how things can be made to work properly again in this country.
We need, for instance, schools in which the many very good, dedicated and highly professional teachers (who do exist - despite the appearances to the contrary at NUT conference)can actually teach. Schools need freeing from local authority control (as were the tory grant maintained schools), so the Head can actually run the show. Government needs to stop sending out more and more paperwork and stop micromanaging the curriculum; discipline must be restored to the classroom. Pupils should be separated from knives and mobiles while in school.
So too with other organisations that used to work pretty well without such bureaucracy and micromanaging.
May we now hear from DC how the tories' management style will differ from Nulab's?

[Richard North]

I wish he would start praising the ultimate public service - the armed forces, and then start complaining about their woeful lack of equipment in Iraq.

[Adrian Owens]

Paul Kennedy,

You make some wrong assumptions at 13:56. The officers to whom I refer at West Lancashire District council are not exploiting the flexi-time system or receiving extra remuneration, simply working additional hours and responding to council members. Perhaps things are different in Warrington, but then you haven't got a good Conservative council driving matters.

[Geoff]

My apologies, but “there’s too many of you, you’re lazy and you’re inefficient.” is a perfect description of the Civil Service.

I concede that it isn't a vote-winner to advocate a widespread cull of the huge number of time-servers and pointless penpushers but that is because NuLab have employed most of them to do non-jobs via the Guardian, but that's what we need to do.

"Equality and Diversity Officers" vote Labour anyway.

What is DC trying to say? CSA? Great success but misunderstood. Home Office? Ticking over nicely - just a shame they aren't appreciated enough.

The Civil Service could be half the size it is and still be more efficent if it was managed well. Where has our courage gone?

Ah...marketing....

[Chad]

"there’s too many of you, you’re lazy and you’re inefficient.”"

Yes, I agree, but then it is probably also a good description of the Tory Party itself, and Cameron's proposed solution is for the state to fund it. So at least he is being consistent in embracing big government.

[Chris Hughes]

Cameron is right in seeing that hostility in the public services toward the Tory party is real and needs to be addressed. But he cannot surely avoid the reality that it is in the interests of Britain as a whole to take an axe to many of these 'hard working professional' jobs

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

Thank you to the Editor for making a Diary piece out of this important area. I have been heartened by the sympathetic comments on here, perhaps the party really is changing in a very fundamental way.

For years the party has been looking for a so called "clause 4" moment, a piece of policy or organisational reform that would show the public - undeniably - that we have changed. To my mind learning to love the public sector is that such moment. It is critically important.

For too long we have had a "private good, public bad" attitude to all things public sector. This has prejudiced our thinking and made us look mean and uncaring. There is so much to celebrate in the public sector and I wish the party would enthusiastically embrace it, quite literally learn to love our public services.

A party that doesn't want to work with our public services to improve them rather than some invidious plan to privatise is quite simply unfit for government.

We talk at length on this site about “Brown’s client state” whatever our views on government largesse this has electoral consequences, we live in a society where we either work in the public sector or know someone in our family who does, it’s a reality of every day life and bravo them! These are hard working, dedicated professionals trying to make Britain a better place to live, trying to help our fellow man. If Conservatives endlessly talk about privatising we alienate these very people. By embracing all that is so very good about the public sector, our teachers, nurses, social workers and the like we show ourselves at sympathy with their aims: to care about modern Britain once again.

I’m delighted Cameron has touched on this issue but it will take more than one speech. It will take Conservative members the re-learn a love for the public sector. Earn the trust of these people and the rewards could be immense. Stop talking about employees of the state and start recognising valuable, professional roles. Our language has to change.

[Chad]

Hi Henry,
Do you support my suggestion from last week, that Cameron should pledge to match Labour's public sector spending plan (in the next election manifesto) for a fixed period to remove the "fear factor" of cuts and truly show that his warm words will be translated into a real commitment?

[comstock]

Saw a piece about this on Newsnight last night. He isn't just changing the record, he's throwing out the whole collection, the Hifi and the kitchen sink!!

[Selsdon Man]

It is timely to remember Hayek's dedication in the Road to Serfdom - to the socialists in all parties.

[Deputy Editor]

DC has just been belatedly interviewed on Sky News. Didn't expand on anything from the speech but handled a couple of barbed questions well. When asked about more specific policies he said (paraphrased): "Your deadline is tomorrow's news headline, mine is putting together a proper manifesto for the next General Election".

[david]

What ever happened to:
Government can't solve a problem
Government is the problem?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I don't recall the abolition of Government in a Conservative manifesto, David.

[Richard]

"DC's remarks that the Party will advocate anti-waste reforms in the public sector but not in a spirit of hostility towards public sector front-line workers is exactly the correct line to take."

Agreed. Although I still think he should clearly state his attention to abolish all non-jobs such as smoking cessation officers, outreach workers etc. Most of these people are naturally left-wing busybodies so there are no votes to gain from them.

"There is so much to celebrate in the public sector and I wish the party would enthusiastically embrace it, quite literally learn to love our public services."

Why? Our NHS is a joke and our education system continues to fail millions. Check out The Welfare State We're In by James Bartholomew. A recent opinion poll showed increasing public support for more private involvement with the NHS. Public sector reform looks increasingly popular in a way it hasn't been previously.

"These are hard working, dedicated professionals trying to make Britain a better place to live, trying to help our fellow man."

Including the outreach workers, diversity coordinators and other assorted busybodies?

Teachers, nurses, doctors - yes I agree these people are valuable. But let's not delude ourselves into believing there aren't any serious problems with our public services. I would never advocate wholesale NHS privatisation but the current system is bust.

What also causes disenchantment with the public sector is the out of date left-wing activism such as that which is found in the NUT.

[James Maskell]

A speech that was 6 pages long when you could have got rid of every line bar the last and made exactly the same point...

Its mood music. This is not a Clause 4 moment...some readers are looking desperately for it but its not here yet. A Clause 4 moment is one that practically tears the Party apart...this isnt it. This is him saying "be nice to the public sector", not saying its better than the private sector.

[TomTom]

Reminds me of the argument that the Party couldn't/shouldn't advocate trade union reform in the late 1970s

As I recall Labour tried it first - Barbara Castle "In Place of Strife" during the 1966-70 government. ......but i take your point

[Paul Kennedy]

"Our language has to change." 14:53

But not to something that is dishonest, disingenuous and that once subject to scrutiny will be found wanting.

Interestingly I think we might find that the professional and hard working employees within the state sector would be rather pleased if we removed from their ranks the shirkers, scivers and generally incompetent individuals together with the politically inspired targets, pointless tasks, excessive bureaucracy and the pandemic of so called political correctness that has taken a hold of all aspects of their working lives.

[Rick]

Teachers, nurses, doctors - yes I agree these people are valuable.

So why do we face unemployed cardio-thoracic surgeons when we are desperately short of them ?

The Public Sector is run directly by H.M. Treasury on a day-to-day basis with money allocated to ring-fenced projects like PFI, and the Capital Charge.

The British economy is a Command and Control Economy in the Public Sector with Fat Controller Brown pulling all the strings and pressing all the buttons. He has had complete control of domestic policy whilst Blair has creative writing classes with A Campbell in foreign policy

[Richard]

"This has prejudiced our thinking and made us look mean and uncaring"

Why is the charge of "mean" never thrown at person A who wants higher taxes on person B to fund services used by person A but not person B? Person B just wants to be left alone to get on with life but the selfish person A wants to use the government to pester person B to give up his money.

[Paul Kennedy]

"You make some wrong assumptions at 13:56. The officers to whom I refer at West Lancashire District council are not exploiting the flexi-time system or receiving extra remuneration, simply working additional hours and responding to council members." 14:40

Adrian, I don't recall suggesting that they were exploiting a flexi time system, merely working at times that they found appropriate and convenient which is indeed commendable, even more so if the hours worked are over and above those contracted and done without payment or time off in lieu.

[SimonNewman]

"Interestingly I think we might find that the professional and hard working employees within the state sector would be rather pleased if we removed from their ranks the shirkers, scivers and generally incompetent individuals together with the politically inspired targets, pointless tasks, excessive bureaucracy and the pandemic of so called political correctness that has taken a hold of all aspects of their working lives."

Yes, we would be extremely pleased. :)

[Chad]

" A Clause 4 moment is one that practically tears the Party apart...this isnt it"

Hi James,
It is not Cameron's speech that is the "clause 4" moment but the very idea that you need to embrace the public sector, become its champion, to win.

Cameron's speech has only very lightly touched on this, but when we discussed itlast week it generated the heated and wide range of conflicting views that would indeed suggest that it could tear the party apart.

[Chad]

..even the responses here today show the huge concern at an approach that will be necessary to win an election.

Can the Tory Party become the public sector champion?

[James Maskell]

Im not sure the problem is that we need to embrace the public sector...we need the public sector and cannot simply rely on the private sector. But if Cameron gives the indication that the balance between the public and private sector should be too much in favour of the public sector, the traditionalists, including me, wont be happy. It depends on the balance.

[johnC]

I think there is every justification for attacking the government over their politicisation of the civil service (e.g. the WMD controversy and the Kelly affair, use of 'special advisors', use of government information for party propaganda) and upholding the ideal of an impartial, objective civil service wholly separate from the government party machine.

[Graeme Archer]

What Conservatives mean by "public sector" (which is an ugly phrase, isn't it?) is those people whose careers are governed by a sense of vocation. I love my job & would hate to give it up ... but it's not a vocation; not, in the sense, I imagine - correct me if I err - which a teacher or thoracic surgeon has about his/her employment.

What Brown means by "public sector" - the sovietisation of our life; the creation of armies of inspectors to constrain professionals from following their vocations.

Cameron's message is that we're on the side of the professionals & want to set them free to make as many decisions as possible.

He wants to emphasise this over the idea that we're stuck in a 1980s rut of believing that private-sector-good, public-sector-bad; for low tactical cunning reasons (which I celebrate!) but also because it's the right thing to do. If the Conservatives aren't the champions of professionals following their vocation, for the public good, who the hell is?

I have a horrid memory from the 1983 general election of "celebrity" endorsers being interviewed on the BBC lunchtime news. I can't remember who appeared for Labour, but I do remember that Robert Powell appeared for the Liberals/SDP alliance ... while our champion was Kenneth Williams. A man I salute in many ways, but not for his political judgement - I can still remember his braying voice going "well of COURSE everyone knows that the PRIVATE sector does EVERYTHING so much BETTER than the PUBLIC". It was a silly parody then, and given the electoral arithmetic, it's a stupid one now.

It hardly follows from this that we can't attack Brown over the pension schemes.

[Richard]

"Can the Tory Party become the public sector champion?"

I'm happy for us to support state schools and the NHS for electoral reasons as much as I'd prefer these to be run privately. But we should not champion those useless parts of the public sector that are mentioned here:

http://www.adamsmith.org/images/uploads/publications/costing-jobs.pdf

Check out page 3. These people are parasites. I hope Cameron doesn't try to excuse them. I realise the need to make ourselves look nicer but I expect there would be a great deal of popular support for abolishing these as soon as possible.

[Paul Kennedy]

Good link Richard (17:16), from which I notice the average salary is somewhat higher than the UK average, on top of which is employers NI and contribution to the pension scheme which would add about 28% to the total figure - overall we are talking serious money.

[Michael McGowan]

Graeme Archer's points are spot on. However, as the son and grandson of teachers and the brother of a doctor, Cameron will get my vote at a General Election only if I am convinced he is going to make meaningful improvements to our public services.....not just promise to manage a bit better than Labour the hugely expensive sovietised mediocrity which he stands to inherit.

[Chris Palmer]

I think Daniel should get some sort of award:

"Please don't provoke him William."

Best comment of the day!

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

Chad,

Reference your question to me about a commitment to match Labour spending levels for a fixed period. I would be very open to such a suggestion but I think a more long term approach is needed where the party as a whole rally round and support the public sector (including outreach workers etc) with vigour. At that point we won't need a single electoral commitment to convince people we're serious it will be understood. I greatly look forward to the day when I can confidently say I work for the party which truly champions the public sector.

[Richard]

"I would be very open to such a suggestion but I think a more long term approach is needed where the party as a whole rally round and support the public sector (including outreach workers etc) with vigour."

Why should we champion outreach workers? What use are they? Unlike nurses they don't have much public sympathy. We would probably gain more votes by promising to give them the boot. Furthermore you will never see the bulk of the party membership agreeing to this in a million years. Rallying round the NHS - probably achievable. But the parasitical public sector? Not a chance. Indeed, by distinguishing between the two we make ourselves look both principled and sincere - "we will support the public sector where it provides a genuine service" etc.

[Richard]

In addition to my above paragraph, it would be advantageous to remind many people on low incomes that their taxes are funding the high wages of the public sector parasites.

[Andy Peterkin]

We need to face facts that having a large proportion of the election with a vested interest in rampant state spending is likely, in the long run, to lead to us losing elections.

[Jack Stone]

Public sector parasitis.Just because you work for the public sector doesn`t make you a parasite and personally I think its totally offensive and stupied to suggest so.
There are a lot of people in the public sector who do tremendous work helping some of the most needy in our society and this country would be a lot poorer without them

[Paul Kennedy]

Jack, I think we have to differentiate between those in the state sector who are professional, hardworking, committed and who provide a valuable and important public service and those who frankly do not. I do consider for example those who help and support the most genuinely needy and vulnerable in our society as providing an important publice service. I draw readers attention to my 16:47 post and the response made to it at 16:48.

[Paul Kennedy]

Sorry for the typo, it should of course read public.

[Richard]

"Public sector parasitis.Just because you work for the public sector doesn`t make you a parasite and personally I think its totally offensive and stupied to suggest so."

I submit this post as evidence that Jack Stone is a troll. I did not say that working in the public sector made you a parasite. I said CERTAIN public sector workers are parasites because they do pointless jobs funded by the taxpayer. I do not think doctors, nurses, soliders or teachers are parasites.

[Annabel Herriott]

I think the pubic sector parasites are those characters that would not let a home made organic cake be given to a lady in a pubic sector care home. She had to have one filled with god only knows what. The pubic sector parasite is the bod who thoughtr up the regulation in the first place.

[TomTom]

I think the pubic sector parasites

What lurid and sick language. If that is Conservativism it comes from the gutter

[TomTom]

their taxes are funding the high wages of the public sector parasites.

You are thinking of David Cameron, Jeremy Paxman, Eddie Mair, Lord Chief Justice Philips, Lord Falconer, Trevor Phillips, Oliver Letwin, Fiona Bruce, etc no doubt - all funded from the public purse

[Jack Stone]

I am afraid the biggest parasities in the public sector at the moment are those private companies working in the NHS who are milking the NHS as some sort of cash cow for the benefit of there shareholders,
MIllions upon millions are being taken out of the NHS by private companies which is largely causing the present cash crisis.
The sort of outrageous practice attacked by Edward leigh at the Norwich and Norfolk Hospital is going on all over the country and its about time it was stopped.
We are not trusted by the public on public services and until we stop using the horrible sort of language like parasities we will continue not being trusted.The vast majority in the public service do a necessary and excellent job even if some on this site don`t seem to want to recognise that.

[TomTom]

Jack Stone, I have criticised you relentlessly, but I agree wholeheartedly with your posting above.

[Michael McGowan]

Isn't it time that Jack Stone grew up? How on earth do you know that the private sector is "milking" the public sector? And if so, what do you propose to do about it? Nationalise or impose swinging price controls or windfall taxes on publicly listed companies such as Balfour Beatty which do billion of pounds of work for the Government in terms of building and refurbishing schools and hospitals? The economic illteracy of the Tory Party is breathtaking ....and no I don't believe that everything the public sector does is bad and everything the private sector does is good.

[Chad]

"How on earth do you know that the private sector is "milking" the public sector? And if so, what do you propose to do about it?"

A more accurate definition,imho, would be that consultancies are milking all their clients, but for private companies it is an issue for management and shareholders to resolve. I've seen it first hand, many times. I've seen consultancies charge millions and deliver nothing.

These companies work by getting in the door, with companies not quite sure exactly what they want, then they expand in numbers faster than rabbits, soaking up more and more funds.

It is allowed because lazy or incompetent managers allow it, because they can't spec properly, so projects creep and creep.

No, the solution is not nationalisation, nor banning these companies. The solution is to make all government IT contracts, fixed price ones. Nothing will make these consultancies keep to the plan than knowing they won't get paid if they don't deliver.

Just watch, they won't fart without it being in the detailed spec. It will force both sides to sit down, and sign off exactly what work needs to be done, and exactly how much the consultancy will be paid for such work.

Multiplex rather than us the taxpayer took the hit on Wembley overrun because they were locked into a fixed price contract. We need to impose this discipline across government on both sides.

[Adam]

But Chad, you are talking about IT contracts the like of which have never been seen elsewhere - I can't think of any company that has requirements of it's IT anything like the NHS.

You also have to face up to the fact that public services have very different demands on them compared to most private sector firms. If the newsagents runs out of newspapers it's unfortunate. If the LEA runs out of school places it's a disaster and *cannot* happen. The only comparable firms are the utilities, which aren't exactly models of private sector efficiency (see Thames Water).

Add on to that private sector can be very 'wasteful' in ways the public sector would never be allowed to be - supermarkets through away huge amounts of food for example - but it doesn't matter because it's acceptable if that's what's needed to ensure the shelves are always full. Any similar practice in the public sector is called "inefficient", and so we see chronic overcrowding in the NHS come winter.

[TomTom]

How on earth do you know that the private sector is "milking" the public sector?

Learn some Corporate Finance and examine PFI deals - maybe you can look at Norwich Hospital and learn how a leveraged refinancing is done to boost up-front equity returns.

If you actually got up and started doing some research instead of being smug you might find out just what is going on in the NHS and other public sector projects such as the £44 million Academy built in London - a record for a State school !

See how much Foster has milked the education budget for.

Then go take a look at Bain, McKinsey, PA, KPMG, PW and their billings into the NHS.

Then take a look at sales of school playing fields.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

[TomTom]

which do billion of pounds of work for the Government in terms of building and refurbishing schools and hospitals?

Fund it through Gilts which would allow Pension Funds to buy them and raise Annuities. At present Pension Funds ae bidding yields down to get Gilts as pension funds go into run-off.

The Government borrows much cheaper than RBS - it is bizarre to buy schools and hospitals on hire-purchase when they are being built smaller with fewer beds and shoddier. Go look at the hospital in Durham.

[Richard]

"Add on to that private sector can be very 'wasteful' in ways the public sector would never be allowed to be - supermarkets through away huge amounts of food for example - but it doesn't matter because it's acceptable if that's what's needed to ensure the shelves are always full."

We don't have to fund it though taxation though.

[Richard]

"You are thinking of David Cameron, Jeremy Paxman, Eddie Mair, Lord Chief Justice Philips, Lord Falconer, Trevor Phillips, Oliver Letwin, Fiona Bruce, etc no doubt - all funded from the public purse"

Politicians, much as people may dislike them, are necessary. Outreach workers are not. I have clearly distinguished between necessary and unnecessary public sector workers.

[Richard]

The vast majority in the public service do a necessary and excellent job even if some on this site don`t seem to want to recognise that.

I do recognise that because my father is one. That doesn't stop me using the word parasites to describe the non-jobbers.

[Michael McGowan]

This is just luddite mud-slinging on the basis of random anecdote. The concept that the private sector should have little or no role in public sector procurement and that all public sector investment should be funded out of taxation or deferred taxation (gilts) is the same dogma that brought us the miracle of the USSR. None of which means of course that there isn't waste in both public and private sectors.

[Michael McGowan]

I am far from convinced that we need anywhere near the number of politicians we currently have.

[Paul Kennedy]

An interesting article in the Daily Mail on the subject:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389416&in_page_id=1770

Here are a couple of paragraphs which I guess says it all:

"Poorly qualified workers who find it hard to hold down jobs in private business are clamouring after public sector work because the pay is 14 per cent higher than profit-making companies can offer, a Bristol University study said.

Low quality workers also enjoy other benefits of state-run organisations, which include half the chance of being sacked compared to a private sector worker; and the guarantee of early retirement, the economists said."

[Paul Kennedy]

"I am far from convinced that we need anywhere near the number of politicians we currently have." 14:02

Totally agree, and the ones that we are then left with who are hopefully of high calibre can focus on important strategic issues rather than pratting around with trivia.

[TomTom]

parasites to describe the non-jobbers

Words like "parasite" applied to human-beings are redolent of Nazi propaganda - they used just these terms to describe Jews.

Michael McGowan should start doing some Corporate Finance. Private Companies have always built hospitals and schools, but in the past they did not borrow the money from commercial banks to lease back the buildings to the Govt on Capital Leases disguised as Operating Leases in breach of accounting standards.

Using Gilts is much more economic because it gives Pension Funds long-term assets which are currently missing from their portfolios. Instead banks like RBS etc are doing leveraged recaps and bloating projects with commercial debt which will cut into the operating budgets of hospitals and schools.

I fail to see what the USSR has to do with anything. It never had free capital markets, we do. Are you so totally ignorant of Corporate Finance ?

[TomTom]

or deferred taxation (gilts)

How are Gilts deferred taxation ? Do you want to move to a pure Cash economy and eradicate Stocks and Shares too ?

[TomTom]

Gilts are the asset base of Pension Funds and Banks as a T-Bills - this is the highest quality asset in a bank portfolio.

You prefer to stuff them full of Junk Bonds and CMOs I suppose.

[Richard]

"Words like "parasite" applied to human-beings are redolent of Nazi propaganda - they used just these terms to describe Jews."

Oh no. You just sussed my plan to exterminate all the outreach workers.

Actually the real reason I use the word parasites is because I can't think of a less hyperbolic term that sums up what they are. Hmm, drain on public finances maybe. But that's a bit long-winded. Besides, the word "parasite" is used by the Left to describe capitalists so the Nazis hardly have a monopoly on it.