There are Tories who exhibit idealogical zeal and fervently believe that ‘private’ is good and ‘public’ is bad. They have been helped along the way by a slimy Labour Party who opened the door to privatisation in the NHS and deregulated the financial sector and so on.
Several enormous chickens have come home to roost. The fraud allegations linked with employment agency A4E were swiftly followed by the G4S debacle at the Olympics. G4S have gone even further - they have recently been exposed for allegedly falsely claiming millions for tagging non-existent offenders (dead, still in prison, in hospital etc) provoking much outrage in the Commons. ‘Private’ not so good after all.
Shortly after the election the ideologues were delighted at the implementation of some of their wheezes. Among them was the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service. Whoops.
“The Science and Technology Committee has published the results of a follow-up inquiry into the closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS).
Private firms and in-house police labs now fill the gap left by the FSS.
The report paints a picture of a chaotic new landscape for forensic provision and says private firms need help to survive in an unstable market. (my emphasis)
It says that unless the government formulates a coherent strategy for forensic science in England and Wales, the criminal justice system could be jeopardised.’ BBC Online 25/7/13
There are other, more slippery Tories, who ride on the idealogical bandwagon but who are at heart self-serving chancers. These slimeballs are interested in using these policies to engage in some serious nest-feathering. Everything is for sale.
Including the sell-off of the NHS blood plasma facility to Bain Capital, a hedge fund who also own Burger King and Krispy Kreme doughnuts. What this will do to the attitude of the millions of donors who voluntarily give blood every year is open to question. Will the service continue in the same vein (geddit?) knowing that profit is now a pre-requisite?
“As forest campaigners celebrated environment secretary Owen Paterson’s announcement in February that the nation’s trees would be protected by a ‘new, independent public body’, the Eye was the only party pooper to sound a note of caution.
As a non-ministerial government department, the Forestry Commission is already independent and no one had claimed it was doing a bad job. Why go to the expense of creating a new body (Eye 1333)?
Last week the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published its governance plans for the new Public Forest Estate Management Organisation (PFE MO) and its analysis of the review by the Bishop of Liverpool’s independent panel - both of which alarmed environmentalists once more.
Thwarted in its attempts to sell the forests to the private sector, the government is now grabbing direct control of them. Far from implementing the panels’ recommendation to put the forests under the protection of independent guardians, as promised, it proposes to appoint guardians who will merely ‘advise and support’ the board, which would be directly appointed by, and report to, Defra ministers rather than parliament.
The Hands Off Our Forests campaign, which gained huge public support against the sell-off, said the proposals would leave the guardians ‘toothless’ and give ministers total control. The analysis paper also notes that the changes ‘could require the transfer of the Forestry Commissioners’ powers and duties in England to the Secretary of State’. It concludes with a vague threat of cuts, as ‘further work will be required to identify and deliver the necessary level of efficiencies’. So much for independent safeguarding.” Private Eye 1345
Giving ministers total control of a national asset?
What’s not to like?