I don’t think Parish Councils are a “bad thing”, though. Some work better than others, but at their best they do deal with things very locally , with decisions taken by Councillors everybody knows. Actually, there are things that could be devolved from District Councils to parishes.

Thanks for reminding me how close we came to having a Parish Council foisted on us in Potters Bar.

I stuck my neck out in campaigning against it, and even had tio take the District Council officers to task for misinformation in the explanatory leaflet which went out with ballot papers.

Fortunately, the good people of Potters Bar comprehensively defeated the proposal in the local referendum (yes – democracy does work).

I believe one of the clinchers was that people realised that once established, it would be next to impossible to get rid of it ,and leave them paying the (ever increasing) bills forever.

Now all we need to do is organise a referendum to abolish our Regional Authority – only that is not allowed even though nobody asked for or elected it.

This is an incredible on cost to the few services provided by the PC.

The Clerk’s time includes many attendances at conferences & training course organised by Local Authority quangos.
A web site is maintained on which such vital data as extracts from the local papers are posted.In addition all PC minutes are recorded-duplicating the PC data displayed on the Post Office notice board & the periodic Newsletter produced by the PC.

All of this activity is pointless, unrequested, & unnecessary, but it keeps The Clerk employed.

I believe that this mindset & it’s attendant pointless activity, and wasted cost must be replicated on a vast scale up through the layers of so called Local Government, and through the Civil Service.

I believe our Public Administration infrastructure has become bloated & self serving and I think many exposed to the realities of employment in the private sector will be voting to do something about it.

As to Peter’s question, Howard Davies asked it yesterday in The e.

The article cointained this quote :-

“Polling data shows that 48pc of the public are against any spending cuts and only 20pc see the need for retrenchment. Britons appear to assume that the fantastic growth in public spending over the last decade has become an entitlement….. Even professors in higher education are balloting to strike, demanding a continuation of boom-time pay raises. You have the best minds in the country planning to go on strike for 8pc. People are miles away from understanding what is needed.”

“What if, even without the credit crunch, at some time in the last decade the public sector expanded beyond what the economy could bear, but the public won’t accept the fact?”

Discuss.

I would argue that we did indeed pass that point some time ago, both in terms of affordability and public acceptance, and that this did indeed pre-date the credit crunch. Indeed, it was probably a contributory factor to the credit crunch.

I know it is widely argued that the credit crunch is a global phenomenon – or at least a phenomenon aross developed economies around the world – but that does not make the point any less true ! We Brits are not alone in wanting to have our public service cake and eat it too (in terms of low taxes).

In fact, one could even argue that the credit crunch is a welcome event because it has forced both public and governments to face up to the fact that you cannot expand government spending, or even the economy itself, ad infinitum.

Anyway, enough of the diversionary tactic and back to my central point which you nimbly sought to side-step with a syllogism.

Whether I choose to use public services or not, I am still presented with the bill. So yes, I am faced with a monopoly provider dictating the price of making the service available to me. Adapting my analogy above, I must pay for one return Club Class ticket each month whether I choose to fly with BA, Easyjet, take the train, or just stay at home.

Your motorway example meets the Yes Minster COGS test. There are lots of reasons why a private company can’t simply go out and build a toll motorway. After all, even when they do it as part of a concession contract from government, they still face “unfair” competition from the state subsidised road a few miles away – just ask the investors in the M6 relief road..

Finally:
“As long as politicians give in to those demands to get elected we will have pretty much what we have now. To date those politicians who have honestly tried to address it haven’t been able to get elected or haven’t lasted long in office.”

Maybe Cameron & Osborne’s honesty at conference may finally prove this wrong. But it probably explains the apparent rise in Lab support over the conference season.

Oops, how clumsy of me to finish my post on a comment directly related to current polls !

Paul

“In the public sector I have a monopoly provider who decides for me what services he will provide, and what extraneous add-ons he will add to push up the price.”

No I don’t think you do.

There is nothing to stop a private company building and running a high speed rail link or indeed a motorway. If it wanted to a private firm could offer to replace the army or indeed take over providing benefits.

that they don’t is because you can’t make money from them or that you couldn’t get people to pay for it.

Much of public service whether it be infrastructure or services fills a gap where the public want provision but the private sector can’t or won’t provide.

In these situation as the majority want a service and only the state will provide it then you tend to get a state service and what is more a one sizes fits all because although the majority want it in order to provide it for so many with limited resources it tends to be inflexible.

Politicians like to talk about individual tailored services but it tends to cost more. They also like to say it should be more customer focused like a private company but private sector companies charge a premium for personal service that the public won’t.

Its back to the dilemma that as well as the public expecting the state to provide what the private sector won’t (often things the public want but which they can’t afford to buy for themselves like private education or health care) with not enough resource that we have a large public sector that no one is happy with.

The state can’t meet the expectations of the public with the resources available from the public so the public response is;

“The state has failed” as opposed to “We ask to much of the state.”

I think the state should limit itself more to only what the state needs to do because it is needed but not commercially viable or that no one else will do. I have no problem with it being an enabler and buying services or functions from the private sector either.

I always find it amusing that the likes of the CBI are always telling government to cut back spending and business taxation while also urging them to support infrastructure projects or taking services out of house to the private sector.

Government spending is bad it seems except when its on things like motorways that private companies build or care homes that private companies run.

The problem with a smaller state is that no matter how economically desirable it is come every election the same public that wants less government and red tape also wants more and better schools and hospitals a better deal for our boys in Afghanistan and more “bobbies on the Beat”.

As long as politicians give in to those demands to get elected we will have pretty much what we have now. To date those politicians who have honestly tried to address it haven’t been able to get elected or haven’t lasted long in office.

I see a lot of things my council does that I question but whether they be from central government or as a response to local demand they are mainly things that can be tracked back to politicians responding to the public and those elected had a mandate to introduce them even if they don’t seem that necessary and are therefore politically difficult to remove.

I think I’ve asked this question before but if not here I go again;

“What if, even without the credit crunch, at some time in the last decade the public sector expanded beyond what the economy could bare, but the public won’t accept the fact?”

Discuss.

Peter.