- Date published:
12:35 pm, August 1st, 2018 - 44 comments
Categories: business, capitalism, Economy, infrastructure, International, Left, liberalism, Privatisation, uk politics - Tags: government, liberalism, markets, serco
A wee word on Serco.
They operate in NZ and have this on their vacancies page (Justice and Immigration)
At Serco, you’ll be part of a team of more than 50,000 people delivering essential services on behalf of governments and organisations around the world. We apply world’s best practice, insights and technology across six key sectors: Citizen Services, Defence, Healthcare, Immigration, Justice and Transport.
Now here’s wee insight into how they ‘provide’ those essential services.
HUNDREDS of asylum seekers are to be locked out of their homes in a shock move officials fear will cause a humanitarian crisis on Scotland’s streets. A private firm housing thousands of refugees in Glasgow says it will start evicting up to 300 people who have been told they cannot stay in Britain. Serco will issue a first six “lock change” notices on Monday giving residents a week to get out with nowhere else to go.
Better then that, it seems that (and putting aside the fact winter’s not far away and asylum appeals take time to process) –
The council [Glasgow City] is barred from housing failed asylum seekers and charities who are legally allowed to do so simply lack the capacity to put so many people up.
Liberalism. Gotta love it.
The sooner the UK elects a Corbyn led Labour government that embraces social democratic sensibilities, the better. And the quicker NZ utterly rejects political parties that continue pandering to liberal sensibilities, and the more timely we are in getting well and truly off the path, that sooner or later, will have us wading through shite like that illustrated above,, the better it will be for us here too.
Public services being given out to private providers whose bottom line is always some financial bottom line is an abhorrence that has have no place in civilised society – None.
I couldn’t agree more that the sooner Corbyn is elected the better, unfortunately we a long long way from that paradigm, one of Arderns most vocal supporters that new Labour liberal centrist, Mike Williams is a staunch supporter of Serco (and Judith Collins funnily enough) and the Serco model, I am not sure what influence he still has, but would be surprised if he didn’t have some sway in Labour?
Not much at all Adrian, he is seen as a “Wheel in someone suitable from the left” right wing choice, to appear even-handed. Mike isn’t trusted so much now days.
Thanks that is good to know and is good news.
“The council [Glasgow City] is barred from housing failed asylum seekers and charities who are legally allowed to do so simply lack the capacity to put so many people up.”
That seems to be a central government issue. It has nothing to do with Serco.
“Gassing people was a central Government issue”.
The guards were “just following orders”.
Too soon KJT,
Gossipboy Serco pays of Tory politicians in high places to win contracts.
It’s deeply embedded with right wing govts grifting and greasing.
This companies objective is bully the poor and downtrodden.
Tory ruling class agenda.
United Nations !!! Serco are plainly breaking Internationally agreed Law, and so is the Glasgow Council.
Why is Glasgow City barred from supplying social housing?
Wouldn’t have anything to do with guaranteeing Serco a profit would it?
I’m just guessing here. But I’d punt it’s something to do with EU rules/regulations that forbid (what I’ll call) contracting back in of privatised services.
Those same rules/regulations that are the road block to a UK Labour government re-nationalising rail without some form of Brexit; to gifting a Dutch company carte blanche on the chopping down of trees in Sheffield(?); the running down of ferry services to the Western Isles….etc.
Liberalism and corporatism – forget some “necessary” latter day Mussolini – one begets the other.
Private sector compettion keeps the public service honest, efficient and innovative to do otherwise makes for great plays like Gliding on or leads to excessive demand for brown cardigans, short sleeve shirts, walk socks and smart shorts 😊
I think you will find most of the most important innovations, historically have come from state funded institutions.
Boeing ford 3m Bell Labs MIT .,,,,,could go on for ever
Not denying nothing good comes out of government institution or collaboration between government and private sector but to argue most important innovations come out of public sector is silly The other big factor that led to the huge leap in innovation and technology in the last 150 years has been the creation of the stock company and the introduction of Ltd liability that unleashed capitalism and innovation on a grand scale making the world a much better place
@Bewildered, Not really sure what you are talking about there pal…
None of the companies you list would exist today without government subsidies/contracts/bailouts and/or protections through tariffs etc
You got it around the wrong way…it’s socializing the risk for your corporations and brutal capitalism for the workers, that’s what I think you meant to say?
” But because we rely on federal funding for 66% of our campus research support,”
L. Rafael Reif
President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boeing, the second biggest military contractor sucking off the tit of the US tax payer …
Ford bailed out by the US tax payer…
Most believe the Bell Model is a thing of the past…
‘Basic Science Can’t Survive without Government Funding’
A+ comment Adrian, corporations love to portray the myth of capitalism as a lean and efficient market mechanism to optimise outcomes, and competition as a race to innovate.
In reality the corporations are vultures in a race to pillage and plunder and subvert regulators and skew markets and exploit labour. Vampire squids
If you really want to go there, most came out of war.
Agree a lot but by no means all. Likewise many private complies involved in war effort
‘war effort’ what war are we talking about?
What ‘war’ could be costing the US tax payer $610 billion a year…ISIS and the Taliban?
I would say the war effort is just a govt subsidy to corporations, much like out WFF is a subsidy to land lords, and the ‘housing market, both unsustainable financial models that operate in a fantasy of unreality that we are all meant to blindly believe in.
Here is something that touches on competition and the collapse of constructiion companies.. We do have to review and critique our favourite sayings about the way forward etc.
You are bloody Bewildered mate!! Don’t you see humour is sometimes used to bring services into disrepute, before they are underfunded made to fail, then chopped up into cheap parcels for private sharks to gleefully pounce on as wonderful “money making” entities.
I’m watching silly Aussies not listening to Kiwis and Irish settlers who are constantly pointing out that selling off Government owned entities leads to poverty for the many and riches for the few.
But as Aussies want to be Americans, they are real gungho!!
The private sector, once it secures public funding, immediately becomes as bad or worse than the public service it replaces, with the added bonus of declining service levels and faux commercial secrecy being invoked to conceal underperformance.
Public Private Partnerships can only be a good thing when operating standards are strictly enforced, which, outside Asia would be the exception not the rule.
The private sector makes for underpaid,over worked staff, and over paid shareholders and executives. And increased costs, in oversight and regulation, to keep them honest
When has privatisation resulted in lower costs and greater efficiencies?
Still waiting for Bradfords, cheaper power, BTW.
Research has shown that the public sector does things better for less with more innovation and less bureaucracy.
No, really, you couldn’t. All of them are dependent upon government funding at the very least and, more often than not, government research (The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato).
Your ideology is wrong and has been proven so by reality.
No one is arguing collaboration: by private and public sector likewise ideas and research on thier own are just that’ you need to turn research and ideas into useful products , innovate on initial findings: market: distribute manufacture: build supply chains etc etc all done by the private sector The value chain as identified by Michael porter is more than just research Again I am afraid Draco reality and searching for truth to back your ideology on your keyboaRd proves you wrong again
Except for the fact that they, you know, aren’t.
It almost always comes down to the state doing the investment over decades that brings about the innovation and even products. The private sector just surfs on that taking all the gains.
It’s sad the way our economy has gone since Porter was really influential here.
Real estate. Dairy. Tourism. And the public sector.
The digital realm stuff LPrent has been working on for decades – with fuck all assistance from the state – continues to lead NZ’s recent productivity charge away from those stale top four areas.
We’ve had a state-driven innovation system since World War 1 and our performance delivering competitive innovation is mediocre.
Some states have been better at it than others.
We like to think of ourselves as small-state innovative shizzle.
In our big-state, militarized state, monetarist state, and MMP mild state forms of innovation system, we ain’t.
The best state provided and directed innovation is, as a matter of fact, from the US.
Yes, our innovation wasn’t great but it took a step backwards after the introduction of neo-liberalism.
The US innovation system is driven by state military funding to military-dominant subcontractors. Their system is certainly the biggest, but by no means the best.
Israel, Japan, Singapore, Finland, France, Germany – even Denmark – have strong innovation systems with sustained good results.
Whatever rose colored glasses you have about our own innovation system historically, it never amounted to much. If you knew anything about the history of our innovation system you would know that the U.S. would never be the model that any sensible NZ government would use to improve it.
Is a matter of fact interviewing your keyboaRd Draco. Your absolutism on this matters well as well as other matters of fact is quite commendable
In agricultural innovation we do rather well.
Our lack of innovation in other fields,i comes from the decision to concentrate State innovation funding on agriculture.
Saying New Zealanders do well in agricultural innovation is like saying Eskimos have done great things with ice.
Sounds good, but not true.
There is a long list of Kiwi agriculture innovation.
I know I’m exaggerating for effect and there are great things we continue to do in agriculture, and great people working hard at them.
the problem is often that we don’t pay proper attention (and take appropriate action to implement response on the ground) to our scientists findings and innovations. I thought of the comments wben reading this from Dennis Frank No.2 in Open Mike 2/8.
“New Zealand’s competitive research model – where individual teams of scientists beaver away inside separate Crown Research Institutes – is one of the major roadblocks we face in saving kauri. While CRI business managers protect their intellectual property, scientists are being gagged. She claims MPI asked her to review all kauri dieback science three years ago and then told her not to tell anyone the results. Without collaboration, says Black, how can scientists know what has already been proved? “We could all be working on the same things, and how would we know?””
Have a look at the whole comment for wider grasp but he makes a good point.
NZ science has gone backwards since it was squeezed into a competitive corporate model.
In addition to the worldwide problem of ‘for profit’ journals gatekeeping information on, usually, publicly funded, science.
I don’t know if my experience matches your comment KJT as i don’t know if the Smithsonian is a forprofit or notforprofit, but I couldn’t access something I thought would be useful to the consideration of our problems with irrigation.
I had an old copy of the Smithsonian that covered the decline of a major river flowing through USA which comes out as a trickle. I wanted to access some of it online and put a link to it but either I was blocked, or it wasn’t digitised suitable for my computer system or at all. Or
I had to pay and I was doing common-good study and didn’t have the money to pay for work I ws doing for free.
Stuff we need to know shouldn’t be shut off so that people face barriers to the knowledge. After all the neo lib model is based on the idea that we should all have perfect knowledge of things so that we can make our choices and democratic business then follows those choices. That’s how it is supposed to work isn’t it. However I think they call that a theory, which hasn’t been proved to scientific level of rigour. We are taking part in an experiment folks. How do you feel at the present, we will take your temperatures again in another six months?
Then I wonder can we call the experiment off? Did we sign away our rights to a life where we can say no to being forced to accept ultimate control or decision making for us, with technological presumptions and pronouncements replacing our assessments? Or is it like the cookie statement that continuing use of this program amounts to acceptance of our terms and conditions – just keeping on living shows accord with government’s procedures? Voting confirms it, rather than indicates that you intend to exercise your right to self-determination. The withdrawal of real respect for people’s sometimes erratic thinking and its replacement by the state and Hal or Holly, the giant computer, could be an explanation of why we can’t get any movement on euthanasia – we cannot be given the right to actually show we can think rationally and choose to remove ourselves from the milling milieu.
When I hit that link it says sorry page not found.
Yes lets trust the private sector to deliver more great outcomes like the GFC, the NZ Housing crisis, Pike river, Christchurch non-rebuild, polluted waterways, etc etc
What the NZ Law Society says about subcontractors being at riak.
In a booming market, like all good Ponzi schemes, the use of project cashflows in this way can be managed; in a flat or declining market, as the failure of Mainzeal in 2013 has shown, such behaviour is not sustainable. The first indicator is usually a subcontractor complaining it has not been paid from monies already certified and released.
These subcontractor guys need an advocate, a minder, someone to make sure that they aren’t just used with lack of responsibility by their head honcho and the lead company.
What can I find out about Ebert.
Some Google headings wiped.
In 1950, K.D. Ebert registered himself as a construction contractor under the Public Works Department and undertook construction work on as many projects as buildings, roadways and water supply work.
K.D. Ebert and Sons Holdings (Pvt) Limited
Under his prolific leadership the company grew from strength to strength and successfully completed the construction of diverse civil engineering projects ranging from buildings, road construction, bridge construction and water supply work.
Later K.D. Ebert and Sons expanded as K.D. Ebert and Sons Holdings (Pvt) Limited and obtained the government registration from CIDA with grading C1.
Mirage Apartments Parnell – apparently successful.
Stage 1 – (construction of tower 88) commenced in June 2001 and was completed in July 2002. With stage 2 commencing in February 2002 and completed in March 2003.
Further in 2002 a lawsuit. Marion Square Apartments Wellington
The apartments were built by Ebert Construction on behalf of Ebert New Zealand Limited.
But after a series of contract disputes, Ebert NZ changed its name to Trebe New Zealand Limited. And it is Trebe that has gone into liquidation.
Building disputes consultant Geoff Bayley says it is a process that has been used more and more recently as companies try to side-step liability.
The Subcontractors Federation says the Ebert name change appears to be a classic case of a phoenix company rising from the ashes.
The federation says the change of names within the Ebert companies is misleading because creditors cannot know who they are dealing with.
And the federation has called on the Ministry of Commerce to consider legal action which sends a message to the business community that phoenix companies are unacceptable
Ebert has been involved for a while in claim with many legal difficulties:
The High Court decision, Sanson v Ebert Construction Ltd  NZHC 2014, holding that payments by a financier to a contractor under a direct payment agreement may be clawed back by liquidators of the developer will reportedly be appealed.
A brief overview of the High Court decision can be found in our last Update.
And Ebert has no doubt been affected by leaky buildings liability findings:
Appeal on the eligibility of a leaky building claim made beyond 10-year limit heard in Court of Appeal
An appeal against a High Court decision made in September last year, which held that apartment owners could join a leaky building lawsuit after the expiry of the 10-year limit on claims by ‘piggy backing’ on claimants within the same complex who had met the deadline, was heard in the Court of Appeal on 9 February 2016. At the time of writing, the Court of Appeal has yet to make its decision.
A copy of the High Court decision, Auckland Council v Weathertight Homes Tribunal  NZHC 2098 can be found here.
Advice – Contractors bulletin for 2017 and how to de-risk contracts. Ideas on how to arrange affairs sensibly by management firm.
Here’s this article from from Stuff which is a bit interesting on Ebert past and I don’t know about you, but it might be time to have a wee look at the Corporations Law IRT to the Construction industry?
The Ghosts of the “90’s No Mates Party” bites NZ yet again.
Meanwhile ‘Honest Eric’ suffers a minor setback in his quest for $$$$.
Hanover Finance was quite lucrative eh Eric.