[Closed] Is This Why G4S Got It So Wrong

I work for one of them there regulated utilities. We're nice guys and all but we required regulation back in the old days prior to nationalisation and we require regulation now post privatisation. In essence when we were nationalised we were effectively regulated in all but name. Without regulation we'd charge pretty much what we liked and some interesting market features would prevent competition quite nicely.

Zulu is roughly correct I would say. When it comes to infrastructure provision you can get what is termed a natural monopoly. The players compete in round one to gain the marketplace (not marketshare you note) generally on a regional basis. They then leverage the share that have and try to buy out their less successful competitors until the have regional monopolies. Why does this work? Well if there is already an electricity cable up your street the cost to connect to it will generally be lower than to run a second cable belonging to someone else. Even the new(ish) inset networks form of competition effectively works on this principle modified by a bit of protection from the regulator for the little guys.

Left to full market forces, the regional monopolies would exclude new entrants, raise prices and allow inefficiency to flourish. Market forces can and sometimes do work where there is a functioning market - but that isn't everywhere.

Incidentally since privatisation our investment levels are up significantly, power cuts are (across the country) down and distribution prices (after inflation) are about half what they were in 1990. The same can not be said for the energy supply companies which, while still regulated, at much freer to act as if a true market driven company.

IGM - There is always going to be a need for some regulation, for safety issues and consumer protection for example - where you draw the line between that and needlessley complex over-regulation is the questio.

the discussion then becomes whether well written regulation can serve to suppress or encourage competition for the benefit of the consumer. there will always be the opportunity for 'micro markets' where, for example a community or parish council might choose to club together to form what could effectivley become a buyers co-operative, especially for example in conjunction with a large local industrial user, where the combined purchae power could bring a lower rate for all - this is the spirit that can serve to encourage entrepreneurism, and well written regulations could easily support it, and act as the check and balance against 'natural monopolies' that are created by the large conglomerates.

Nothing to argue with in theory there.

Practice of course can sometimes be different as we all know, but that is more pragmatism than any political hue talking there.

I can think of a number of occasions when the multi-national conglomerate I work for has been the party bailing out the well-meaning but probably misguided local endeavour (or their contractors). But like I said we're the nice multi-national conglomerate; others may act differently.

Ah, now I get it...........this is obviously a wind up !

Obviously. 🙄

Crikey ... look at the tan on the G4S boss ... Do you trust this person? 😆

Of course there are inefficiencies in the forces/public sector and of course there are abuses in the private sector. The main difference for me is that in the private sector I have a choice.

I have choice in the private sector. For example over which school my kids go to, what dentist I use and doctor I use, perhaps it would be greater if i could use untrained doctors ? It is is probably about as large as which supermarket I use for example. Certain things negate choices.... 3 sets of roads perhaps DS?

by rejecting the middle ground, you're demonstating the narrow minded extrmist view that I find quite basic and simply by you calling someone naive or extreme doesn't actually make it so.

I like it when people state their own view as the middle ground. To me it looks like a right wing pro capitalistic view and I rather feel the middle ground would accept that the private sector does some things better than the public sector and vice versa. There is no blanket statement here. I cannot ever see any country letting its security services be entirely run by the private sector for example- any idea why?
I am as left of centre as you are right but at least i seem to be aware of this.
Re legislationg/regulating them
Legislation usually happens after the event to moderate what the market has done rather than occurring before the sector actually exists. Take rail for example – was using different gauge a good idea because it was pro choice and it heped the consumer “choose” or did it make it all a bit rubbish till the state sorted it out?

Where can a state pensioner go if not the NHS?

They can choose not to? Are you arguing for the inability to afford healthcare as some sort of choice now? Are you suggesting they are all informed enough to choose?

Those who sit at the extreme ends of the spectrum

So only extremists like the NHS and oppose the introduction of choice 😕

the issue is that the private sector does bring choice - the restriction preventing it from bringing this freedom is government intervention.

[Dangerously OT comment] Those interventions messing with the all powerful market...was it the minimum wage which stopped g4s, health and safety gone mad? The unionisaton of their labour force? Perhaps just that sometimes the private sector actually fails to deliver and the state has to step in to to sort it out as they can do it better than g4s who have so obviously failed and have been bailed out by the public sector who are shit at it eh.
On a thread about g4s failing you choose thos as the opportunity to wax lyrical about th private sector being ace...rather an odd "choice".

I'm not a good judge to be honest, but his hair isn't his own..

I like it when people state their own view as the middle ground. To me it looks like a right wing pro capitalistic view and I rather feel the middle ground would accept that the private sector does some things better than the public sector and vice versa

But, but, but that is my view any extremism in my opinion has been incorrectly assumed. Where have I said anything other than the public sector can work more efficiently? Where have I said that all public sector jobs should be privatised?
Calm down my lovelies, you'll break your knees.
I'm comfortable with my capitalism and the right to choose.
[url= http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html ]http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html[/url]
[url= http://www.investorwords.com/713/capitalism.html ]http://www.investorwords.com/713/capitalism.html[/url]
[url= http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism ]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism[/url]

An alternative view of capitalism is..

Capitalism is ultimately about eliminating competition and having total control of a market via a monopoly. Choice?

Which is not quite right, is it?
😆

Show me the wide range of public options and the lack of private choices

How on earth does contracting out [url= http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1141161/devon-gps-hit-virgin-wins-45m-childrens-services-deal/ ]childrens' services to Beardy Branson[/url] or Policing to G4S facilitate 'choice'?

As for today's interview, could the weirdly-coiffeured bloke be any less of a shambles?

Policing to G4S facilitate 'choice'?

I bet they the next contract goes to someone else, don't you? I'm not saying the selection process isn't bent, just that there is choice?
Where can you go if plod make a balls up?
I'm sure someone has the opportunity to undercut Branson and/or offer a better service...

my view any extremism in my opinion has been incorrectly assumed.

Now I know you like a good old argument but I never had you down as this unaware.

thanks for not bothering to address any of the actual points I made
I would be delighted to read your account of how g4s has been a great success in terms of choice, efficiency in relation to your capitalist view
as i said your view is not the middle ground especially re the NHS and we both know this

EDIT: DS we go to the public sector when g4s balls it up- surely you noticed them being dragged in to sort out this mess - and to the courts [ public sector] when the police screw it up.

Capitalism is ultimately about eliminating competition and having total control of a market via a monopoly. Choice?

and communism is all about eliminating private sector competition so the dictatorship has a monopoly. Choice?

thanks for not bothering to address any of the actual points I made
I would be delighted to read your account of how g4s has been a great success in terms of choice, efficiency in relation to your capitalist view

I don't think I need to when you assume I think that G4S has been a success. It has been an unmitigated disaster as is the Barclays debacle and the HSBC scandal. Capitalism out of control and something I don't subscribe to.
G4S screw up, no more contracts, choose someone else.
Don't like Barclays, go to HSBC, Oops... Don't like HSBC go to CO-OP.
That's your choice. How they award the contracts is probably a huge F-off scam.

I'm sure someone has the opportunity to undercut Branson and/or offer a better service...

Right... because the provision of integrated health/social care is [i]just like[/i] selling broadband packages.

The likes of the coiffeur-apocalypse are getting paid handsomely off the back of pish-poor privatisation - & it's a fugging insult to public sector staff who do their job diligently & with proper grip.

G4S screw up, no more contracts

Prisoners running loose...anyone? Anyone? ANYONE?

Prisoners running loose...anyone? Anyone? ANYONE?

So no prisoners ever escaped from a state run prison.

So no prisoners ever escaped from a state run prison.

So desperate to defend G4S that you introduce a straw man? Sheesh.

Selling stuff and/or services by being the lowest bidder and/or promising kickbacks and/or directorships to politicians seems to be a jolly poor way of getting the best service.

Start sending the MDs of such companies to do jail time might focus their minds a wee bit.

So desperate to defend G4S that you introduce a straw man? Sheesh.

Not at all. Just stating the fact that prisoners will escape no matter whom runs the prisons and it's sod all to do with animal bedding.

No one ever escaped from a German pris...

Oh, yes.

No one ever escaped from a German pris...

Oh, yes.

Where is the like button. 😆

That escape was so great they should make a film about it...

Oh, yes.

( I can do this alnight!)

Not at all.

Oh right, it's just that you did. Just pointing it out.

All the same, I'm not sure anyone monumentally screwed up prisoner transport as much as G4S did when they were moving them around, when they had a different name. A name that became synonymous with failure, such was the mess they made of their job.

nothing is perfect the issue is which is better.

Do you think it is G4s or the state sector in delivering security at the Olympics gorehound ?
It must be awful when your right wing views dont match reality 😉
I dont exect a trivual issue like that to alter your view though 😕

IMO there should never have been a question of G4s or any other private security company handling security for the olympics it should have been handled by the armed forces from the start and it should have been the FIRST thing that was arranged instead of the last. What exactly is some fat bloke who works for G4s supposed to do against a bunch of Muslim fanatics with AK47s and bags full of semtex?. Soldiers are trained and equipped to deal with such things fat blokes dragged off the dole que are not. As for being right wing, you really don't know me at all do you?. Or do I fit the ridiculous guardian readers stereotype that everyone who doesn't shre their point of view is a swivell eyed right winger or a screaming nazi who eats babies and stabs old ladies for their pensions. Do yourself a favour and stop reading that tripe and get a life. 😛

And on that bombshell I'm off to give the Mrs a good seeing too. 😀

What exactly is some fat bloke who works for G4s supposed to do against a bunch of Muslim fanatics with AK47s and bags full of semtex?.

Well the detail behind this scenario appears to be a little vague - have these Muslim fanatics got tickets, or are they using their AK47s as a means of gaining access ?

Am I right in thinking that a former Home Secretary, Lord Reid is one of the directors of G4S? Behold the new firm that this Government will see running the police!

It’s nightmarish that the State is delegating a large number of crucial societal functions and powers to a small cabal of unaccountable super companies that have the naked financial capacity to bid. The electorate however wish to have policing, healthcare and basic standards of housing and social equality well within their control and purview.

I’d like to 'outsource’ our governance to the Norwegians or Swiss.

What’s happening to this country is like something out of a dark, dystopian Orwell novel.

#privatisationnightmarewithinanightmare

Interesting you should say that deluded. As the third largest private employer in the world, and the very largest security company in the world, you could have been forgiven for thinking that G4S would have had considerable and unparalleled experience in security for Olympic Games.

Not so, it would appear. And apparently not necessarily because they failed to secure the contracts for previous Olympic Games, and they went instead to their rivals, but because there doesn't seem to have been this level of private sector involvement in security for Olympic Games before.

Yep, "privatisationnightmarewithinanightmare" appears to be very much a British government fetish.
And how truly embarrassing.

Come on STW get a real world grip on this.

G4S are being scape hosted for a massive cockup.

They have been given an impossible task and are muppets for signing up but LOCOG are equal muppets for creating impossible contract.

If this job requires monkeys, then G4S can provide monkeys. We don't know the threat level, although we can assume it's sporadic due to the West stirring up so much shite around the world for so long in the interests of oil/money etc.

To say the army should have been in there in the first place is perhaps shortsighted. Debates about whether it is 'beneath' troops to do this, or the issues with scheduled holidays with their family between conflict zone tours, will go on for ages and perhaps wake a lot of people up to what they have to go through as compared to a civvie employee. I did laugh when I heard the army brass had gone into G4S HQ and "taken over" control. Served them right.

This crap has been going on far too long and the government refuses to learn. 20 years ago we were about to go out in the field and the civvie caterers had supplied us out of date, rotten food and an NCO had to go in and strangle the caterer with his own tie in his office before he finally gave up in-date food for us. Don't **** with our meals!! We had RP's swinging their truncheons in the canteen due to how bad the food was, they had heard us and another unit were likely to riot. I had to be pinned down after walking outside and vomiting on the kerb, then swaying on my feet trying to run back in, dive over the counter and attack the staff.

[img] [/img]

Talking to a friend last night
And he was saying a company called H&M Security called G4S
and asked if they could help them out with proper trained security staff
But G4S refused help ?

G4S are being scape hosted for a massive cockup.

Nope. Par for the course. I work for them part time in a different area having been TUPEd over from another company after the contract was re-tendered.

Since taking over G4S have reduced staff numbers to the point where the service is affected. Long serving experienced staff have been made redundant and replaced with new inexperienced staff, many on zero hours contracts. There are frequent mistakes on payslips (when you get one).

The management culture is like it or lump it. Reducing costs and therefore staff pay seems the number 1 object.