Profit and the NHS - a comment

****

To paraphrase Adam Smith:

"It is not from the benevolence of the doctor, the nurse or the radiologist that we expect our healthcare but from their regard to their self-interest"

Unless, that is, these people are volunteers? And they're not so they do it - that wonderful, fantastic, caring work - for personal profit. I for one am pleased that they do.

....

A Liberal democrat politician being liberal - on schools! Will wonders never cease?

****

Listening to the Radio while sitting in the traffic up Manchester Road out of Bradford and the presenter announces the next guest. It is Lord Willis - Phil Willis, former head teacher and Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate. Phil is going to talk about 'free schools' - my heart sinks. A Liberal Democrat peer who used to be a teacher - grief this won't be good now will it!

And Phil starts saying something like "I only half agree with Nick Clegg." Flecks of rage-induced spittle begin to form on my lips, the eyes start to swivel - Nick Clegg has given one of his most cardhousian of speeches:

Yes to greater diversity, yes to more choice for parents, but no to running schools for profit, not in our state funded education sector.'

And this ex-MP only half agrees with him.

But then it changes. Far from wanting to carry on the state-directed, local council apparachik managed system that is so damaging children, Lord Willis pointed out that, while 24 free schools is great, what we really need in 300 free schools. And, as the Swedes discovered, you can only achieve this by allowing schools to be run for profit. Good Lord, I exclaimed!

And the argument went on as Phil pointed out that loads of businesses - for profit businesses - make money from the public sector without anyone batting an eyelid (bar the occasional neanderthal nutter in Unison). Why should it be so different for schools. Here was a liberal being liberal - almost unheard of these days. Here was a man who understood schools (having been the head teacher of a large Leeds comprehensive), who had pointed out how the doubling of spending on schools had hardly raised standards at all. A man who observed that eleven-year-olds were arriving at big school unable to read, write or add up - not just the odd one or two but whole classes filled with semi-literates.

Nick Clegg - desperate to appease the social democrats in his party - is wrong on schools. Wrong to talk about directing where the next lot of free schools should be, wrong to try and apply some form of social gerrymandering just to avoid Labour's sad little accusation that these schools are "only for middle-class kids" and wrong to rule out running schools for profit.

And, you know what the saddest bit of Lord Willis's interview was? Even sadder than the ignorant presenter's suggestion that profit-making equated to fee-paying. Sadder than that same presenter's complete misrepresentation of the policy - failing entirely to recognise the role of the pupil premium that would make educating poor kids more profitable. Sadder than the BBC's obsession with giving airtime to educational flat-earthers like Fiona Miller.

The saddest bit was that Lord Willis believed the policy would fail because his party wouldn't recognise how profit-making would transform educational delivery for the better.

I hope - for the sake of the children living in poverty - that Lord Willis is wrong. But I fear he isn't.

....

Somehow I think Tesco will do a better job...

***

...of recycling than most councils so we should welcome this:

Supermarket giant, Tesco, has told councils to remove all their recycling facilities from store car parks, as the firm prepares to launch its own national scheme.

The company wrote to local authorities last week, ordering them to remove bottle banks and recycling bins as soon as possible.

A Tesco spokesman said the firm would shortly be releasing details of its own scheme, which will be managed by contractor DS Smith. 

Even when - shock, horror...

‘I cannot believe Tesco is doing this out of the goodness of its heart,’ said Cllr Bloxham. ‘It will make the company money.’ 

....

Accumulation, earnings, proceeds, return, surplus, yield....thoughts on 'not-for-profit'

****

There's no doubt that the term "not-for-profit" is one of the most annoying phrases - used mostly to enable the organisation or individual concerned to clamber up to the very tippy-top of the moral high ground.

Or else as a clever marketing scam!

What exactly does "not-for-profit" mean? Does it mean you plan to make a loss? Or that any excess money left over will be given away to the poor? Or is it just a euphemism for "I can pay myself loads of money but we don't have any shareholders and that's good, isn't it?"

For that's the case. Being 'not-for-profit' doesn't mean you're going good work, it doesn't mean the buyer isn't being ripped off, it doesn't stop you turning what would be dividends to owners into bigger salaries for managers and it's not a magic way of acquiring moral righteousness.

So I'm not impressed when I hear a very well-paid chief executive explain how their organisation is 'not-for-profit' while sitting on a comfortable - maybe verging on fat-cat - salary. If that isn't profiting from the organisation you run, what is?

....

What the hell is a social enterprise anyway?

David Floyd (beanbags and bullsh!t) presents a witty little contribution to the debate about the “social enterprise” badge being promoted by Rise asking what all the fuss is about and why such a badge – the “social enterprise mark” – is needed.

As it happened I had been talking with a colleague about how much I hate the term “social enterprise” oozing as it is with superiority and smugness (although my distaste for this term is dwarfed by my loathing of the term “third sector”). Are all the world’s other enterprises anti-social just because they have the gall and cheek to make a profit?

Now it seems, some organisations that fit a preordained set of requirements can stick a shiny new badge on their headed paper declaring to the world that they have achieve the elevated “social enterprise” status! Well forgive me for not sounding my horn or waving flags to celebrate this new initiative.

We need to drop the wholly artificial distinction between a “social” entrepreneur and the ordinary run-of-the-mill sort of entrepreneur. It always was a nonsense, it belittles the creation of value (or rather places greater emphasis on one type or measure of value) and shoves aside the vital importance of private enterprise in making places work.