« Why cut university spending? | Main | Barclays profits scandal »

February 15, 2010


Leigh Caldwell

Hmm. You found a whole different set of reasons to be depressed about this idea than I did. That doesn't make me feel better.



Still centrally funded, still centrally set standards. It is Thatcherite privatisation behind a mask of cuddly social conscience.

I prefer my approach.


I know why you're against it. The Tories proposed it, and they can't be right on anything, ever.

Frank H Little

A non-economist writes: it resembles an artificial "market", like the one that was meant to make the railways more efficient.


The Tories are just neo-Blairites - Labour plan B. The BNP are the only party capable of ending statism (by making the country ungovernable).


Gotta watch out for those pesky minimalist bears.

john problem

Eeh, lad. Yer should go into yer local Co-op. Reet good they are. All the lasses are smiling and helpful. Picking holes in't Tory policy is tert mug's game. All yer've got to do is vote bloody Labour owt. Otherwise, we're done fer.


Why is John Lewis the only model that people think of when considering co-operatives? Some social services in the UK are currently provided by the WRVS. The RNLI provide sea rescue services. In neither organisation is there a profit motive for professional staff and the state is the principal buyer.


"I know why you're against it. The Tories proposed it, and they can't be right on anything, ever."

Or he could be against it because it's a bad idea.

If you think his reasoning is wrong, explain why.


"I know why you're against it. The Tories proposed it, and they can't be right on anything, ever."

Of course they can, but only by accident.

chris strange

The problem is the monopsonistic buyer, but the Tories also have policies that could get the market into that side as well. By making it easier for people to set up new schools and transfer their kids (and the money that follows them) to these new schools you start to break up the monopsony. Assuming that the parents that move their kids around do it in the best interests of the kids then this would make it in the interest of the schools to act in the interest of the kids, as viewed by the parents.

Roger Thornhill

I do not doubt that the Tory plans will result in more power to the centre. They will "approve" who can. They will have oversight.

What is the point in converting a State run monopoly into a co-operative running a State-mandated monopoly? That is worse.

Plurality is the key. Some suppliers might be co-operatives, others private. Customers shoudl be free to choose (and by "choose", I do not mean move house to get into another geographic monopoly!).


There I was thinking "monopsonistic" was a typo, but no, it's a wonderful new word and an interesting concept!

[Check out Wikipedia -- this blog won't let me post the URL]

David Morson

The idea of co-ops is pretty good and I have really liked it but the actual concern is that those co-ops should be properly organized and managed.

alanm crisps

Co-ops are no bad thing but:

- You need to make sure you achieve something and not spend all your time voting on paperclips purchasing (I have some experience here).
- I wonder about the efficiency of competition when you have all the start up costs all over again - new IT systems (another million on a website), years of knowledge lost (make same costly mistakes again).
- There are already trusts delivering services, does this not tick the competition box?

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad