From the FT today:
The UK is set to tear up private companies' contracts to run probation services and embark on a comprehensive rethink of supervision for offenders, in a stark admission that reforms introduced just three years ago have gone badly wrong.
The plans to be unveiled by justice secretary David Gauke on Friday effectively end a system of paying companies for probation services largely based on whether offenders under their supervision commit new crimes.
The move to unwind the reforms introduced by former justice secretary Chris Grayling is just the latest example of serious problems with the UK's outsourcing of public services to the private sector.
Three things to note and use in conversation. This proves:
- The state can do things better than the private sector;
- The Tories now know this;
- The government can take services back into the state sector.
The obvious corollary is that is this can be done for the probation service is can be done elsewhere.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Is there a literary opposite to the Midas touch? Because whatever it is, Chris Grayling has it in spades.
The closest literary opposite of the Midas Touch I can think of is the Medusa glare. One glance from her grimlit (does that word even exist?) eyes and the object of her stare turns to stone. Chris Grayling rather lacks the crowning glory of writhing snakes though, being a bit of a baldy. But he metaphorically has a head full of wriggling, wiggling snakes, so I reckon the analogy with Medusa stands!
Sandra Harvey says:
” grimlit ”
I don’t think there was such a word as ‘Grimlit’ to describe a stare.
But there is now 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWh0DOAfc7A
🙂
I’ve been reading recently on the Korean news that tory ministers are planning to examine a 3rd option for running prisons, which is not the same as probation admittedly.
Currently the two main views are State versus Private, but the 3rd option is to let the prisoners themselves run the prisons. The neoliberal logic is that local authorities should be run by local authorities, supermarkets should be run by people who know about running them, so why not get the people who know about running prisons 24 hours a day to actually run them.
The trials in my birth country have led to a big reduction in costs, and reoffending seems to have dropped to an extent as you don’t want to go back inside for fear of getting killed. You could not make it up
That is as close as it gets to having the proverbial ‘lunatics running the asylum’.
The prisoners do run the system….the prison authorities supervise them.
They do all the cooking/cleaning. Run the library (yes, prisons have libraries, unlike many towns now) and the hospital facilities (many have internal “hospital” areas)
All prisons have access to a doctor, or doctors (private).
And all prisoners get paid-for medical care….albeit from the NHS, but paid-for.
Seriously, with many inmates coming from a professional career, did you expect it to be any different?
Whatever they do it won’t be controlled by the state. No doubt Branson is waiting in the wings with a cunning plan.
What an apt image: Brandon as the Baldric “de nos jours”, although I then struggle to find a suitable simile or metaphor for the hapless and disastrous Grayling. I did once amuse my local MP by describing him as the thinking man’s moron, but he constantly proves to be much worse than that.
Is this the State about to “take back control”?
“The Tories now know this”. They’ve always known this but their mates don’t get rich.
I can tell you that some Councils and Housing Associations having been taking certain services back in house for some time – for the last 4 years in fact – where quality has got to be so bad under the out-resource model.
It’s about time those idiots in Westminster caught up.
There is money to be made from those taken-back services…and money taken back is money earnt!!
Just like people are always complaining about all the new houses being built….(“yes, everyone needs a house, but not near ours”)….but with the LGG cut to the bone, councils have to get more money locally (council tax) (and then they also get the blame that SHOULD be directed at the govt)
The basis of my comment was that the lack of direct control of quality and the accompanying risks thereof made taking back the services absolutely essential.
Not every service mind but many. The Council I work for has huge problems with its outsourced IT and slowly regaining control of that service back in house.
Perhaps we could outsource the parliamentary function…..
Pilgrim Very Slight Return says:
“The basis of my comment was that the lack of direct control of quality and the accompanying risks thereof made taking back the services absolutely essential.”
Absolutely correct and has been rampant across both both local and national government. Administrators who know how to run nothing have outsourced to companies that do (unfortunately what they know how to do is make money for the least physical effort and maximum financial gain). Said administrative bean counters and local government officers responsible for agreeing these contracts are mostly totally ignorant of the complexities of contract law and have been getting stitched up for decades by wide boys with better resourced contract lawyers.
The reversion to in-house provision is only slightly ahead of the complete dearth of viable public resources remaining to be pillaged.
This is not really a comparison between private sector versus public sector.
It is a comparison between ‘private sector operating under a commissioned contract’ versus the public sector not doing it under a commissioned contractor.
The justice system (including prisons and parole) is entirely in the competence of the state. The private sector can’t get involved at all except in the context of a commissioned contract.
It is a meaningless comparison unless you analyse the contract (terms and conditions, financial model, specification etc.) and the way in which the contract was awarded. Most of this is in the control of the commissioning body.
You also need to analyse the performance of the provider under that contract. If there was underperformance, why? Was it entirely the provider’s fault? This information is unlikely to be fully in the public domain.
Have you analysed any of these to form any views?
The pretencecwas a contract is possible
It is glaringly obvious it cannot
Not all situations can be anticipated and priced so failure was built in from the outset
This outcome was glaringly obvious
And many said so
Dom S says:
You make valid points, Dom.
Private contractors work down to the limits of their contracts, if the contracts are incompetently constructed and then not competently enforced (even if they were approaching adequate) the fault lies with the issuing authorities.
The responsibility for the catastrophes of privatisation lies firmly and exclusively with the governments that have pursued the policies which have been clearly deeply flawed in many cases (I struggle to think of an example of a privatisation which has been beneficial).
Sandra Harvey says:
Andy Crow says: ” grimlit ”
I don’t think there was such a word as ‘Grimlit’ to describe a stare.
But there is now
AC, I’ve since found out from a smart Alec, know -it-all mate that the word I was trying to use was gimlit, as in gimlet-eyed (sharp stare.) Personally, I think my mistaken ‘grimlit’ is much more accurate when describing Chris Failing (a term Mike Sivier on his Vox Political blog coined five years ago.) Gimplite would be even more accurate.
But of far more importance than my Freudian Slip spelling mistakes is, “God damn it man, how come you can post smilies on this site and I can’t? Your one even copied on my Copy & Paste of your post, but I’ve tried 3 different codes and I STILL can’t post the blasted things. Snot fair!”
Regarding the ‘Private good, State bad’ argument I always put the following question to those who believe that statement to be the gospel truth enshrined in letters of immutable celestial gold.
“If the private sector was so very good at providing both reasonable quality and free/affordable essential services, even for those on the lowest of wages, then how come state education, council housing and the NHS were ever deemed to be necessary to set up in the first place?”
I’ve yet to receive a straight answer to my straight question from such believers. In fact I’ve yet to receive any answer, straight or otherwise, that didn’t involve an awful of hurrumping, humming & harring and ‘yes, but, no buts.’
Likewise with the privatised utilities. I can understand the argument that privatising the gas and leccy companies would led to competition and therefore better customer service and lower prices…. in theory anyway.
But the water boards? These are pure monopolies, so how did privatising these lead to greater competition? It’s not as though I can contact Thames Water and say, “Beam me up some of your water from London, Scotty, I’m pissed off with United Utilities.”
Currently the only way I can change from UU to another water company is move to a different part of the country. Much as I dislike UU, I’m not prepared to uproot myself in order to give those carpet baggers the two fingered salute.
Hopefully, the cons will also stop any further privatisation of prisons as well as the probation service. Any sane state would hope to lower the prison population, whereas private providers operate like hotels; the higher the occupancy rate the higher the profit they make. A conflict of interest if ever there was one.
This conflict was thrown into high relief by some American judge (in Texas I think) who was found to be receiving back-handers from the private company running youth detention centres in his jurisdiction. He was locking up kids left, right and centre for the most trivial of offenses. He over did it and was found out. Can’t remember if he was banged up inside himself or just received a slap on the wrist for his ‘over-enthusiastic’ sentencing of school-aged kids.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if something similar is going on in the UK’s privatised prisons.
Andy Crow’s smilie was definitely showing on my post before I posted it. NOW even that’s disappeared. I’m off to lick my wounded ego…. defeated by a smilie of all things!
The judge was from Pennsylvania not Texas and he got 28 years inside.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/12/pennsylvania.judge.sentenced/index.html