In the past, in a political galaxy, privatization and outsourcing of public services were not always dogmatic. Rather, behavior may involve some degree of pragmatism and some balance of interests. Prior to the long rule of the British political arena, the post-war Adelaide government and Mrs Thatcher’s decisions on public-private relations tended to be a real compromise rather than an ideological fix. The role of the government has always been essential, but the form of ownership and the regulatory regime can be flexible. At first, Mrs. Thatcher only argued that it was reasonable for private companies to compete in providing public services.
Habits, assumptions, and arguments have ruthlessly fossilized since Thatcher’s time. Part of it is political – the public facing Margaret Thatch’s generation of politicians may prefer to be privately owned, especially in housing, lowering taxes to higher levels and disliking over-powerful unions. Part of the reason is that the economy – the decline of the industrial-based, and sometimes the public, economy, the intense collective bargaining and the growth of globalization and the financial-led services sector are often offshore and driven by shareholder value and for many employees It is important to note that management’s salary and salary, as well as insecurity, are important. The result for nearly four decades is the fact that governments behave as if history had no power to control the provision of public goods. In fact,
The collapse of Carillion has proved the historic failure of these more and more hypotheses. This week’s report of the National Audit Office on the “theory, costs and benefits” of private financial initiatives provides further and compelling evidence that this is the stage for public policy and that the imbalance of power and interests has become unsustainable. Now there needs to be major changes. This is a political and economic necessity in the history of this country.
Regardless of the initial requirements, the PFI plans simply do not work as they have developed. The NAO report shows in a very clear way how generations in the future will start with some PFIs, billions of dollars extra, and has no clear public interest. Part of the reason can be explained by poor government records of contract negotiations and the assumption that any public institution will inevitably do better should be treated with caution. However, the debate over the role of private capital is that competition helps to provide better public services at a lower cost, but the reality is that competition often leads to worse outcomes for more people. The roads, railroads, hospitals, schools, prisons and public offices that the United Kingdom needs are more efficient, but in many cases it is the opposite and the public funds are of low value. NAO said: “Our vision is to help countries spend wisely.
Jeremy Corbyn is increasingly saying that Britain has become the crossroads of public service financing. In today’s Guardian interview, Labor leaders determined to attack all existing PFI contracts by aggressively attacking “outsourced racquets” and “privatization dogma” and advocating “public preference” that “outsourcing was limited to service failure.”
Mr. Kirby grasped the seriousness of the issue and the new public sentiment. This gives him a tremendous advantage over an opponent who is always in denial. It is correct to examine the distortions caused by the current system of outsourcing and tendering. Just think about it. Rebuilding a case of taxes and borrowing made the necessary projects possible without squashed moderation of income and plunging the public sector into excessive debt. However, the public sector may always buy something from private companies that it often uses to build houses, schools and railways. Until Mr. Corbyn’s solution is still in place, detailed work still needs to be done, and the solution may be dogmatic in its own way, trying to convince a public that is al-ready to change.