The last few days have seen a graphic example of the perils of outsourcing. As the NHS is gradually auctioned off, one of the pieces up for grabs was the GP out-of-hours contracts. Serco got the job in Cornwall, and were recently slammed for providing a substandard service. Next came the 111 helpline. The bidders had to work on assumptions about call volumes and length, since they were going to be paid per call. NHS Direct, which won a lot of the contracts, has given one back shortly after starting it, and the rest before even starting. The assumptions were wrong, and they can't make them viable. For a minor player like NHS Direct, this is terminal. They can't exist while making big losses. But the major players can carry on regardless.
The journalist John Harris wrote a long article in the Guardian on Monday about Serco in particular and outsourcing in general. He's got all the main points, and writes clearly and passionately. But he misses one serious issue. Contracts handed out by one government run for a lot longer than the government itself. An incoming government in 2015 cannot cancel existing contracts except at immense cost. So our fragile notion of democracy is further undermined. We can get no further, because the politicians on all sides are not going to back away from outsourcing. More local councils are looking at hiving off many of their services. Government will flog off anything it can. There are vast amounts of money to be made, and that's all that matters.
There was a hilarious article in the Telegraph yesterday. Back in November 2011 the BBC's John Humphrys presented a radio programme called The Future of the Welfare State. It was a personal view, from his Welsh home town. But there were complaints that it was not based on evidence, and was politically biassed. The BBC Trust has just ruled that it failed to back the views presented with figures, and breached the rules on impartiality and accuracy. Cue outrage from Iain Duncan Smith, who obviously loved the original programme, and sees the Trust's verdict as typical left-wing bias. Ironically, he felt the same about Humphrys interview of him about the benefits cap recently; and he professes himself "staggered" about the way the BBC reported the High Court's judgement on the bedroom tax yesterday. Yes, IDS is ridiculous. But he's also very dangerous. The only acceptable stance, as far as he's concerned, is for the BBC to parrot the government's line uncritically. Yet another chip out of the structure of democracy.
Although I have no experience of the 111 non-emergenvy service in this region (North East) it is run by the Ambulance Service. Lessons could and should be learned and maybe the more competent bidders should be involved with the struggling regions. The WP take note.
ReplyDeleteThis has got the Daily Mail foaming at the mouth too. As you can see from the headline they have failed to get the gist of the story they are reporting on, preferring to put their own spin on things...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381398/BBC-triggers-fresh-bias-row-censuring-John-Humphrys-programme-lifted-lid-welfare-state.html
I read that one service was pulling out as it was no longer viable,what if any penalty will they pay?
ReplyDeleteThe BBC has never been impartial. In the inter-war period it was heavily criticised for not examining unemployment or the depression. Much of its programming was 'highbrow' and reflected elite culture e.g. art, literature, religion, classical music etc. It was often criticised for not carrying more 'light' programmes especially 'dance' music.
ReplyDeleteBy consciously NOT examining unemployment or anaylising the depression it was criticised by the left for parroting the political agenda of the National Government.
To my mind nothing has changed. It IS biased but not the way IDS thinks. Look at it's programming. Where are the television documentaries examining long-term unemployment or analysing the Russian Revolution or charting the history of social protest in Britain or trade-unionism or Victorian crime and its causes?
It's programming STILL reflects the aspirations and interests of middle-class Britain and what the BBC THINKS the lower-classes should be interested in but have NO interest e.g. 'Songs Of Praise' and 'The Proms'.
The BBC is THE most conservative media organisation in the western world. It IS biased but it is not a left-wing bias but a RIGHT-wing bias.
The fact that IDS thinks it is a left-wing media organisation proves that he is an idiot with zero perception of either British cultural history or current affairs.
Your comment is a good illustration of why the BBC can't win; you bring to it your own biasses and assumptions. What gives you the right to assert that the "lower-classes" (whoever they are) have no interest in particular programming? And to be fair, the kind of socially conscious documentaries you want do happen, more on radio than on TV.
DeleteI don't want this thread to be about the BBC, but I'll air one of my own grievances; the assumption that, on Saturday night in particular, the nation wants trash TV.
"I'll air one of my own grievances; the assumption that, on Saturday night in particular, the nation wants trash TV"
DeleteOh snap! I read somewhere that it's trash because the powers that be believe that a lot of people (especially younger ones) are out on a Saturday and that the woman of the house controls the remote until MOTD starts. Don't blame me it's just what I read!
Also why is there no "Man's Hour"?
Enough!
DeleteYesterday I experienced Outsourcing on a first hand basis and I am sure this is not an isolated incident. After applying for hundreds of positions using UJM,I actually received a response that I had been short listed,the position was local,but the interview was 160 miles away,I informed the WP and the congratulations quickly faded when I enquired about funding to attend(Train and Hotel)rather surprised by the response "Is this a guaranteed Job?" No,it is an interview,under my agreement with you and the JCP I must attend or be in violation of my agreement,after some discussion,I was directed to the JCP to ask for funding,the JCP sent me back to the WP as I am their Problem..Outcome? "If you are hired we will repay your expenses,we can't advance you any funds until we have a positive outcome,in the future try and apply for positions that interview locally" In my opinion the WP's main goal is profit,If I find employment and they can claim I am worthy of their "Help" other than that it is strictly a lottery..Profit first,people second!
ReplyDelete"In my opinion the WP's main goal is profit,"
DeleteOh No!
The WP's ONLY goal is profit.
By the way I suggest you complain to the JCP as you appear to have been prevented from attending a viable job interview by the meanness of the Provider.
@Giss,I already did as long as you are attached to the WP the JCP does not want to know,their advice was to complain to the Prime/ICE,as this interview is on the 7th what would be the point other than spending my meagre resources chasing them down only to be told "We will look into it" as has happened in the past,I followed up one complaint to my local MP,nice man but clueless as to the workings of the JCP/WP.
DeleteI had a similar exerience with my WPP, although in my case it was about funding to re-fresh my FLT certificates of basic training, as all the jobs were saying must have re-freshed your certificates in the last 3 years, so I could not apply for any of the jobs. When I asked regarding them paying for this, I was talked in to funding it (via taking out a dss budgeting loan) myself with the gurantee they would refund the money when I found a job. Yes you have guessed right, im still unemployed and have wasted over £400 for no reason. What my WPP had failed to tell me is that most places want FLT drivers who have experience operating the trucks in the past 6-12months, so as it was over 3 years since I last drove one, I was/am wasting my time applying.
DeleteTo the author of Ramblings of a Fibro Fogged Mind blog - I can't see a way of contacting you through your site (and I'd like to). Can you send me a Not for Publication comment with an email address, please.
ReplyDelete