The national interest

haha!Ayse good question!

After a quick think I have come up with one idea, that 'national interest' means lots of profits for businesses.

It is a good question and one that is often hotly debated!

For me, it is putting the interest of the nation (as a whole) before everything else and that includes before the interests of popular areas or groups of people. Some would argue that policies should also not be formulated or centred around what benefits other countries.

When you consider the vast differences between the South and North of England, that gives an idea of the harm that can be done when one area of the country doesn't receive the 'national attention' so to speak on a recurring basis.

A few years ago, one of the councils in the North East put out to tender the supply of wheelie bins; even though lower quotes were received from local firms for supplying the bins, the contract went to a German manufacturer (the bins turned out not to fit the bin lorry's lifting gear so were all unusable anyway but still had to be paid for) - not in the national interest imo.

Just an extension of personal interest - family interest - local interest - national interest. Always depends upon your own perspective but I do agree with Holly that we should buy locally or nationally rather than from other countries.

Depends what you mean by 'National Interest!

The NHS is definitely in the national interest, so I wish they'd stop trying to sell off bits of it.

A good free health service is definitely in the national interest, but how you achieve this can be open or discussion, not that I have any disagreement with you durhamjen

Holly EU procurement legislation means that any contract above a certain amount (£140K I think) has to be put out to competitive tender across the whole of Europe. Another thing that none of us voted for.
Contracts are not always allocated on price alone. The contractor has to be capable of delivering the service or goods that have been specified in the contract.
It's in no-one's interests if a tender is accepted where the price is so low that the contractor goes broke trying to deliver at an unrealistically low price. All that happens is that lots of people lose their jobs, and there is delay while the tendering process is repeated at huge cost.

As far as 'in the national interest' is concerned, I always thought that it related to issues of national security, but has been over-used in recent years to serve as politicians' excuses to do something they don't want to have to otherwise explain.

Surely if something is in the National Interest it is so politicians can Learn the Lessons in order to support Hardworking People

I think this is a phrase that is significant when judging whether or not news stories are an invasion of privacy. If a politician gets caught speeding it is in the national interest to publish the story, because politicians make laws and policies about how those laws should be applied. If a sportsman or singer gets caught speeding it may be interesting to the public - or at least those parts of the public that are fans - but it is not "in the public interest" to devote acres of newsprint to the story.

janeainsworth

EU procurement legislation means that any contract above a certain amount (£140K I think) has to be put out to competitive tender across the whole of Europe. Another thing that none of us voted for.

I wasn't aware of that and, to be honest, I don't understand the rationale behind it. If a UK company can produce a product at a competitive price, then the contract should really go to the home country to keep its own people employed. It does make you wonder doesn't it.

Ooh, that would be labelled 'protectionism', HollyDaze - although other EU countries seem to get away with it!

Yes and it usually means the cheapest (and usually the worst in terms of quality) bid wins.

But maybe it means that UK companies can win contracts in other EU countries?

If they do, we never hear about it...

What I want to know what are the criteria that separate the 'hardworking' from the 'not hardworking', does the second group include those over retirement age, for example? And how can they ensure the second group do not receive the many blessings promised the hardworking?

I reckon the cleaners that worked at my last place of work were the most 'hardworking'. Clearing up the mess made by others; apparently the blokes toilets on the shop floor were disgusting! National minimum wage and I would if I had to be for anyone asks.

Thank you for your comments re: national interest - Agree with jeanainsworth - national health is in everyone's interest - petallus, good point, rather near my thinking!

I agree with you ayse without cleaners we would be in real trouble yet they don't get the recognition they deserve

Concerning the NHS, there has been a vote by GPs about whether to start charging us to have consultations. This happened a couple of days ago, but it hasn't been widely reported.
Fortunately only 59 voted in favour, and over 200 against.
I am sure this should be in the national interest to report it, not just in papers that can be read by medical staff.

It was reported on the BBC and ITV news, plus in the Guardian and the Daily Mail.

It happens every few years. It was the same in 1969, always the same result

Going back up the thread a bit, On tendering internationally: because contracts have to be advertised internationally, doesn't mean that you have to accept a foreign tender just because it is the cheapest. There are many reasons for not accepting a foreign bid - or a local bid, for that matter; doubts about quality, line of command, lack of track record etc etc.

When I worked in industry the contracts I let were low and came in under the international threshold, but with a range of bids from UK contractors, I didn't necessarily take the cheapest. Providing you have a document explaining how you reached your decision - and you should do that for any contract anyway - there shouldn't be a problem.

One of the negative factor considered when tendering for a waste incinerator in my county was the fact that one of the companies involved had a very poor record of compliance with environmental regulations controlling emissions at other facilities it owned and operated.