State provided services

The state provides a lot of services through NGOs or Charities or social enterprise organisations.

Everything from social housing to special schools to support for those with mental health or a learning disability to services for the homeless and that is only some of it. Some are huge organisation employing hundreds of people.

Should the state be providing these services directly get rid of he CEO on large income and replace them with state employees?

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

The state provides a lot of services through NGOs or Charities or social enterprise organisations.

Everything from social housing to special schools to support for those with mental health or a learning disability to services for the homeless and that is only some of it. Some are huge organisation employing hundreds of people.

Should the state be providing these services directly get rid of he CEO on large income and replace them with state employees?

Yes. Absolutely.

Mrs OBumble

I suspect it cost more, though, because of the lack of volunteer and community support.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Absolutely.[/QUOTE

I suspect that all services would swell to have a morass of middle management and be a total quagmire after a while followed by a few outrage article about how many people in a HSE/state-run homeless services were on 120k. The pension entitlements alone, if all the staff were state employees, would be massive.

If the state should be directly providing the services instead of outsourcing to the NGO charity sector how come it's not policy by the main political parties to take over all the services?

Eric Cartman

State run services are always runaway financially with inefficiencies and usually have much worse service delivery levels than outside contracting. There are some services (health and primary/2nd level education) that should be provided, but beyond that, the private sector is better in every regard at service provision.

paw patrol

Eric Cartman wrote: »

State run services are always runaway financially with inefficiencies and usually have much worse service delivery levels than outside contracting. There are some services (health and primary/2nd level education) that should be provided, but beyond that, the private sector is better in every regard at service provision.

not necessarily, in the event of a problem being resolved , the state could shut down a department and move civil servants elsewhere.
I suspect with these 3rd party agencies , the problem will never be solved because of that lovely public money and how reliant they are on it for their job.
no problem , no jobs.

It's probably not efficient either way tbh .
shockingly.

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

not necessarily, in the event of a problem being resolved , the state could shut down a department and move civil servants elsewhere.
I suspect with these 3rd party agencies , the problem will never be solved because of that lovely public money and how reliant they are on it for their job.
no problem , no jobs.

It's probably not efficient either way tbh .
shockingly.

How would you provide services then?

paw patrol

mariaalice wrote: »

How would you provide services then?

its a hard choice.
I'd probably go for state over quango in general.

In general terms (i'm aware I'm running off on a tangent) I just want tighter controls of state funds.
It galls me that hospitals , schools are on tight budgets while the state spunks money on **** like overseas aid and quangos such as NATIONAL WOMEN'S COUNCIL OF IRELAND.
Just mentioning (as an example) them not picking on them , there are many I dislike.

I have a deep rooted mistrust for quangos in general, I think in many cases it's jobs/income for the usual suspects of journo / political type who failed to make TD grade, throw in maybe some luuvies from the social pages and boom you're quango ready.

I think if you want a lobby group , fund it yourself.

All giving out about the charity NGO sector but at the same time have no solution to the issue.

A charity model is a great boom to the government because of the fundraising elemnt which bring in a lot of money in the form of donations. A state-provided service would not be able to do that.

James Brown

The problem is these organisation fill a gap left by government in the first place. If government was doing it's job we wouldn't need them at all. If we had as much criticism for the private companies we use as we do the charities we might get somewhere.
Goldman-Sachs aren't interested in housing low paid workers made homeless by poor policy, in fact poor policy and crises is what makes them their money.

end of the road

Eric Cartman wrote: »

State run services are always runaway financially with inefficiencies and usually have much worse service delivery levels than outside contracting.

this is really a stereotypical myth tbh based on private goodd because private, and public bad because public sector.
yes, there are some parts of our public services which need serious improvement, but their issues are down to government not being bothered to sort it out, and if contracted out in the morning they wouldn't change a bit either.
being a runaway financially and having inefficiencies will happen regardless of whether the service is directly state operated or contracted out, because by it's nature the services can only run at a certain amount of efficiency before they are unable to actually perform their roll, due to the universal across the board availability of those services regardless of anything.
state run doesn't guarantee that service delivery will be worse, and contracting out doesn't guarantee it will be better.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There are some services (health and primary/2nd level education) that should be provided, but beyond that, the private sector is better in every regard at service provision.

not necessarily.
sure, shops factories etc they are fine at, and services they commercially run that might have a public service varient, but outside that it's generally a mixed bag which seems to run between either the same as what existed or a hell of a lot worse.
generally, services that require state funding are better within the state unless it is something very specialist by where it actually wouldn't make sense to have someone on the pay roll full time because the specialist service wouldn't be required 99% of the time.

One eyed Jack

mariaalice wrote: »

Should the state be providing these services directly get rid of he CEO on large income and replace them with state employees?

Be the same thing really - you’d simply have State employees on large incomes, and lashings and lashings of public money being wasted on largely inefficiently run services which would claim to be providing value for the State, but in reality they’re more interested in keeping themselves in jobs and milking the cash cow that is the Exchequer for all it’s worth.

Who the hell needs a million euro printer?

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Absolutely.

Sure, let them all be run like Iarnod Eireann.