It’s actually WTO rules so we will be bound by them whether we are in the eU or not unless we have a ‘nationalised’option then we don’t have to tender.
The big problem with many of these decisions is the short-termism of the people in charge. If they can show a reduction in cost of £xm over the next year, then they can move onwards and upwards leaving someone else to pick up the pieces. In this case, the Home Office saves £50m+, but the Benefits people might end up paying a big chunk of that to the people that lose their jobs. And that doesn't take into account any fluctuations in Exchange rate which could further limit the savings.
Also, as the UK decided to privatize the printing of passports (the Stationary Office as was) in 1996, it is bound to put the contract out for tender. If, like the French, it kept the printing in-house, then it could print them wherever it wanted. Yet another (Tory) UK government decision being blamed on the EU for political points.
Argghhh!! Sounds like we need a 'MEAT' tenderiser !! I would think national security Trumps (pardon that word) the requirement for cheapest tender. It didn't really answer my question as to how costs are calculated though.. If it is simply foreign company x tenders ..will produce x amount for price of b and UK company y tenders....will produce x amount for price of half b then the loss to the UK GDP etc has not been factored in.
It’s because the French haven’t flogged off their passport making. Thatcher flogged ours so we can’t keep it in house. Another **** idea coming home to roost. The damage that woman caused to our country should never be underestimated.
You can’t factor in loss of GDP. Because that would give a British company an unfair advantage as the foreign company would have no comparator. Our problem is that Thatcher flogged off our in house passport making if she hadn’t it wouldn’t have gone out to tender at all. See comments on this thread.
So ... do you feel the enforced tender system is right or wrong?. Personally, I think Governments should be able to factor in all the relevant costs to outsourcing abroad. The cheapest in simple bid price is not necessarily the most cost effective for the taxpayer. Who came up with the stupid formula?
I agree broadly with you. The WTO in basic terms determine the process/formula. The economic benefit/deficit to a country should imo be a factor. The WTO takes the view that if a process is thought of as ‘vital’ it wouldn’t be outsourced and wouldn’t be up for tender. It’s my personal view that after Brexit govt whether left or right should seriously re-examine what has been privatised over the last 40 years and look at which areas need to be brought back ‘in house’. People voted leave at least in part to regain ‘sovereignty’ being a 3rd country to the EU and working under WTO rules won’t achieve that in fact may make it worse. We need to re-evaluate where we are as a society. All my opinion of course.
I agree with that. All my ring binders full of banda-master handouts (yep my economic studies happened long before photocopiers and printers) led us to the inevitable conclusion at the time, that a mixed economy was the most sensible option. Like most things in life, extreme policies rarely work. Public utilities where income can only be derived from the taxpayers should, in the vast majority of cases be 'not for profit' or rather ALL 'profit/surpluses' should be re-invested (which rules out private companies and shareholders). Of course, it is not as clear cut as that,but a headlong rush towards nationalisation or re-nationalisation is as bad IMO as the headlong rush to privatise everything. I have never held much stock in the argument that private companies are guaranteed to be more efficient and can always invest more, so justifying all those things we, the taxpayer ended up footing the bill for like PFI. It just seemed a way to transfer the country's wealth from working taxpayers to Company directors, investors and shareholders with no real end benefit. As you say, a re-evaluation of where we are as a society is needed. Whether that is pie-in-the-sky or not, the fact remains, the current system is broken. EDIT.."The WTO takes the view that if a process is thought of as ‘vital’ it wouldn’t be outsourced and wouldn’t be up for tender. " Seems a bit strange. How do they view military aircraft/weapons manufacture?. That is outsourced and yet vital to the security interests of a nation so could justifiably be ring fenced for a national company as could Nuclear power
I can’t disagree with any of that. A balanced economy is the best economy. I suspect there may be a Defence codicil but it’s not an area I have much knowledge in.