An amazingly in-your-face titled Capita conference looms for March: it’s called the “Developing Commercialism in Local Government Conference.”
Developing Commercialism in Local Government. That title really is about as blatant as they get. I hardly knew where to spit when I read it. Nobody is even pretending any more. Getting the private sector and a sales “ethos” into the public sector is the name of this game. It’s all about replacing the public service ethos with a commercial one – and outfits like Capita now happily brand their conferences to make that clear.
Back in my day, these private companies used to try and fudge the “aim is to make money out of public services” point a bit. Private companies would attempt to pour oil at our council meetings (I was a union steward representing members whose jobs were threatened by private sector takeovers) with coy phrases like “we just want to help enable public services,” or “we’re only here to assist your council with change management and then we’ll be gone,” and other florid bollocks. Now, we’ve got the likes of Capita turning up at councils with their tongues hanging out and saying point-blank Let’s Develop Commercialism. Read their bumpf and weep. This is the direction that public service “leaders” point themselves in today – “exploring the local drive towards commercialism,” keeping “a keen focus on engendering a commercial culture and overcoming risk aversion,” (hopefully not to the extent that Fred Goodwin did) and pushing heaps and heaps of money at private companies. As those of us who follow these things know, the commercialism of public services is particularly about pushing heaps and heaps of money at companies like Capita. We do keep seeing the same faces at these things.
So. Well-placed industry worthies are encouraged to “attend this senior level networking event to plot the way forward for a more commercially minded local government that enables revenue generation while delivering sustainable services that meet the local need,” says Capita. It is only a pity that the private sector consistently fails to deliver on this sort of fantasy.
Let’s just have a look at some of the fine print here and think about the sort of thing that it means:
The skills Capita conference attendees will learn include:
– “Moulding a commercially competent workforce with the skills to drive forward transformation.” I’ve had a think about this and wonder if it is atually code for: “Learn How to Get Rid of Unions And Scatter A Unified and Committed Public Sector Workforce To The Winds.” As we speak, for example, Barnet council workers (whole swathes of Barnet council services have just been outsourced to Capita), are fighting job losses, job shifts to different parts of the country, major wage cuts to already-low paid roles in carework and the fast-approaching closure of their union office as union facility time is removed. This workforce is being moulded all right. It’s being moulded into a low-paid, non-unionised, commercially-focused, service-users-count-a-lot-less-than-profit, insecurely-employed shambles.
Conference attendees will also gain insight into:
– “Conducting thorough market analysis to identify viable business opportunities.” I’m intrigued by this one. I didn’t realise things were so refined on this front. I thought these companies just found each council’s bank and then backed a large van up to the front door.
I wonder if the conference will share news here of the ironically-named Service Birmingham, the joint Birmingham council-Capita venture which runs Birmingham council’s call centre, IT systems and council tax collection service. As endless news reports on Service Birmingham show, costs to Birmingham council for this are thought to have skyrocketed to about £120 million a year from around £55m in a few short years.
I say “are thought to have,” because nobody seems too sure of the exact figures involved. That is because transparency around the money changing hands via Service Birmingham isn’t really there. Even people who should know how much is being spent with Capita don’t. Doesn’t bode well for too well for taxpayers. Birmingham councillors complained last year to the Birmingham Mail that they had “little idea” of how much the Service Birmingham arrangement was costing. The Mail even had Councillor John Clancy saying that Birmingham City Council members were being “deterred from getting a grip” on the nuts and bolts of the “complex” deal because the facts were unclear. “Nowhere is there a clear, total figure for what we are paying and what we should be paying,” the Mail reported Clancy telling a scrutiny meeting. “The biggest issue is transparency, we have little idea of what is going on.” Which was quite an amazing admission when you think about it. Perhaps Birmingham councillors should attend the Developing Commercialism In Local Government conference bit on “gaining insight into achieving robust governance and accountability in this new style of public services.” Am guessing that’s a pretty short session.
If they learn nothing there, Birmingham councillors could sign up for the bit where conference attendees will:
– “Explore commercial models of service delivery while safeguarding the social value brand of local government.” I’m not quite sure what a social value brand is, but am pretty confident that local government is running out of it, not least because of its relationships with private companies and their commercial models of service delivery. In Birmingham, recent news stories have strongly suggested that the council needs to choose between providing desperately-needed services (the sort of service that gives a council social value, I imagine), or continuing to pay Capita for whatever it does for £120m a year at Service Birmingham. So that could be it. Or perhaps the conference will touch on the commercial model of service delivery that Capita used to trash the social value brand that was once attached to the courts translation service. Or maybe conference contributor Essex county council will step forward to say a few words about the commercial model which led to the big contract that it had to prematurely end with BT – a decision which in turn led to threats of very costly legal action. I suppose ECC does know something about commercialism in local government. They certainly know something about being on the arse end of it.
Anyway – sounds like a great day out. I’d love to go, but sadly can’t, because Capita won’t let me attend its conferences. Boo hiss. I guess that until it does, we’ll just have imagine what goes on behind the scenes and screens.
While I agree with virtually all of this post, I think there is an important element missing – although, in a sense, in correctly outlining the damaging nature of private interests in local government – you have explained the symptoms of my angle on it:
Sometime in the last month or two I saw a very interesting documentary analysing the Scandinavian economic model. The premise was that those in the UK who often make appeals to its effectiveness seem to assume that the model involves more than considerable public ownership. According to the documentary, the model does no such thing. The key was the difference between how private companies operate in the public sector say in Norway, and how they are allowed to operate in the UK. In Norway there is a sensible and just framework of rules regarding future investment levels, how much the profit can be in percentage terms, etc. The over-riding impression I got was that where the private sector was allowed in, the rules were sensible.
Now I’m not saying that as things stand in the UK we should have the farming out of public services and money to the private sector. Quite the contrary; I think, as you do, that the public sector is the best choice. But I think it important to realise that it’s not necessarily a case of public versus private, with private interests always operating on the ground against public interest, but rather precisely how, if the private sector is chosen to operate something, in what way they are controlled by the government. So, basically, because we have both main UK parties forever grovelling up to the rich and private shareholders and international commercial interests, the rules which are in place are woefully inadequate. On purpose. It is the nature of how private interests are allowed to operate (if at all) which is important. The analogy, in my opinion, is like the case of blaming bankers for economic disaster – yes, they are to blame, but also, that is what they do: a banker aims to maximise profit and sod everyone else. So they need controlling, which is why the government of the day is to blame in not controlling them. To blame only the bankers will get people nowhere, unless stronger blame is apportioned to the government, Labour or Tory. Similarly, it is not that only an relatively unregulated private sector that is to blame, but the government for allowing them virtually free reign in the UK to milk the public sector, through lack of regulation. Like seemingly so-much in the UK in recent decades, government legislation is insidious or lacking and serves the interests only of the wealthy. Whereas in many other European countries, yes, of course there is huge wealth in some hands, but the share of national income is generally more balanced.
Oh I know nhs capita if atos didn’t get you they will fekin crazy life
Pingback: Hypothesis: Outsourcing reduces cost and improves quality | Calchas
I stumbled across your blog while researching how much capita profits – I wondered what they make out of these hugely expensive conferences and which authorities send people to them. This was after choking on my coffee at an invitation to a conference on Welfare Reform! Profiting from the sick and disabled not enough – they gotta rub our faces it and get every drop of cash they can