Is the ‘Productivity Question’ in reality the ‘Neoliberal Question’.

IMHO, the so called small state is an opportunity for business to profit at the expense of the tax payer and driving wages down into the bargain. When services are outsourced National pay scales cease to apply, resulting in poorer pay outcomes for those delivering the service. The clue is in the word service industry.

I certainly don’t believe that private companies provide better services. Railway companies have continually failed to improve services and have been taken back into public ownership. LNER was making a profit under public ownership so why put it back out to the private sector?

Dentistry certainly no longer provides a public service in many areas and the latest figures suggest that more people feel obliged to pay for private medical treatment. Our ‘services’ need to be properly financed and managed.

I’m fed up with the notion we need to pay lower taxes BUT the tax burden needs to be adjusted. I’d personally like to see a reduction in indirect taxation (VAT, Driving licence/passports etc.), a levelling so that unearned income and earned income are taxed at the same rate and of course fewer tax loop holes. Maybe this way lower wage earners would be marginally more able to pay the ever increasing costs.

I’d also like to see far more investment in manufacturing in our countries, rather than relying on cheap imports.

Anyway, that’s my rant for the day!

From the article:

Almost everywhere in the UK the private sector is involved in what is the ‘state’ provision. But of course there are necessary inefficiencies in their involvement. Things have to be quoted for and contracted. Contracts are for a specific period and then change. There have to be administrators to organise and regulators to ensure fair play.

I have a problem with this. I can see that he's thinking about the outsourcing of public sector functions to the private sector, but the public sector has to source everything it uses from the private sector (equipment, machinery, furniture, stationery etc. etc.) from the private sector. Which also involves quotes, contracts and monitoring, the 'useless jobs'.

Would taking functions back 'in house' make a significant difference to the number of 'useless jobs' involved? Would it improve productivity?

Am I missing something?

Maisie, I thought he was saying that the government sees people working for the state as those who could be working in our vacant jobs. If that is the expectation, I would question it, although nothing surprises me these days. As an example of government/management thinking, it would be irrational. Why would you want a Data Analyst, for example, someone vetted to do that job and with high-level skills in that area, to drive a truck, or pick fruit?

We do see, however, that these are the very people - the highly trained and highly skilled - who get fed up with working for a government that doesn't appear to appreciate them. That seems to be the government's aim in government positions, in the NHS and schools, for example. I imagine most paid by the state now feel like that. A Data Analyst working for the government is worth £10,000 to a private company (the cost of initial vetting) on arrival. It's not as if we don't need them either. The same is true of NHS medical staff and teaching staff. Private companies, therefore, headhunt those working for the government. Once they move governments have the costs Peter May quoted.

It's not all cut and dried. You might find this interesting. It is from an article entitled "Labour would be wise to pick its battles on outsourcing":

Our research shows that there has been both outsourcing successes and outsourcing failures. In areas like waste collection, cleaning, catering, and maintenance, and in some aspects of government back-office operations and the prison service, outsourcing has delivered significant savings and benefits to citizens.

At the same time, successive governments have overestimated potential savings – and the disaster of probation outsourcing shows that the private sector is not the cure-all that some advocates suggest. However, it is wrong of Labour’s Andrew Gwynne to claim that there is “not a shred of evidence” that outsourcing has ever worked. And there certainly isn’t enough evidence to suggest that insourcing will always work.

What I read as the accusation of the Peter May article is that Conservatives want to outsource the management of the country while they just concentrate on moving the politics. They don't seem to consider is that, in some cases, management is the very essence of their job.

Well said Daisy Anne - especially your last sentence.

There may often to be a case for outsourcing some functions from within the state sector.

However the wholesale privatisation of services which were at one time in the state sector has been pretty disastrous - just look at the railways and utilities , especially the water companies and the reckless poisoning of our environment.

The pursuit of profit is not always compatible with good public service.

I always thought that, until recently, there was general agreement from the centrists for a mixed economy, i.e., state and privately run.

It is hard to find statistics about this. I have seen it said (via voting at elections) that roughly 10% are far-left, 15% far-right, and 75% are centrist. In the past, I would have thought that an acceptable estimate.

Such proportions would mean 10% would want us to move towards nationalisation on a large scale, 15% would want us to privatise as much as possible, including state functions, and 75% would want an even mixture.

I don't think that is the case currently. We have seen the growth of the extremes. The centrists want horses for courses rather than a single direction for all. However, they are being squeezed out by an extreme even though they are still in the majority.