Marmora Man

Sean, Not me - I maintain my libertarian stance - government is inherently inefficient and too much of it is bad for us. MM xxxx

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- First thing to say that if the problem of helping ill people back to work was such a problem, measures could easily be taken as part of normal govt. business. I don't think so - this problem has plagued all governments since the 50's, more seriously since the 80's. One of Frank Field's points is that by creating a two tier benefit arrangement where those that are "incapicitated" receive more than those "out of work" the system automatically incentivises people to try and graduate to the higher benefit The reason this is such a hooplah is to appear tough and macho - and innocent people will suffer because of it. But middle-Britain will feel that "something is being done" - such is mean-spiritedness. I'd agree the current Labour Gov't is keen to outflank the Conservative policies - but my argument here isn't about politics, it's about sensible management of a multi billion pound budget. What is so unreasonable about reducing the cost of fraud? There are plenty of non innocent people taking the benefit and p*** at present. Incetivising people - well as motorists know all too well, if you incentivise people they will exceed guidelines in a bid to chase targets/ money. Bad enough when it's a (non) parking offence but when you are playing with people's lives it's a different matter I doubt the current system, where no one is incentivised to get it right is anywhere near perfect. It is perfectly possible to devise an incentive scheme that makes the error rate (reducing false positives / negatives - really disabled / ill people being denied benefit and healthy people obtaining it) as part of the KPIs. I pay staff in my company a bonus for getting it right - not for cutting corners, why would / should the DWP be any different? "I believe the government proposals are flawed and won?t achieve all their objectives but the basic premise that society (not just government) should help those in real need and weed out those who seek to exploit the system, seems a worthwhile task to me. " I basically agree with this statement - I just don't believe that weeding out those who seek to exploy the system is either the ultimate goal nor happy consequence. You and I won't benefit, scociety won't benefit, a minority of scroungers may be caught but at the expense of others. As has been discussed before, scroungers exist - always have and will. But they are a minority - nor are they living the life of Reilly. And they cost relatively puny amounts. While agreeing with my statement - you then go on to make some contradictory points. In my view weeding out those exploiting the system allows those in genuine need to receive better attention from the system. Society benefits because we are spending the taxpayers money on worthwhile matters not on wastrels. Potentially we all benefit from reduced tax take, or the truly incapacitated benefit from higher benefits. The puny amounts - if the total IB cost is, as has been estimated, approximately ?20 Billion then even a 10% savings is worth having? The assumption that all 2.5 million people on IB can or should be encouraged back into employment is also slightly iffy. It means finding 2.5 million jobs for starters. And what quality or suitability of jobs will they be? My illustration proposed that 20% of those on benefit returned to work - that's 500,000, not 2.5 million. I agree that the beginning of a recession is not the best time to start to reform the benefits arrangements - but it's not a reason to delay either. I noted this point in my original post. Your maths also seem to jump to a very neat "scaled-up" sum. Where is the cost of implementing and maintaining this scheme? Agreed. I wasn't building a Business Case - merely using large numbers to illustrate the proposition. However, the sort of savings that can potentially be made would cover the cost of implementing the changes. Ongoing would be an annual cost reduction to the benefit of all. However, having defended my defence of Frank Field I still think that: a. If the James Purnell Green Paper makes it thru' Parliament and b. It is implemented as described (both unlikely propositions) then the actual, on the ground - in the Social Security office impact will be limited because of the inherent inefficiency of government and the lack of real incentives (not just cash incentives) to make change happen.

I was commenting on a Labour Government policy and recommending the thinking of a previous Labour Government minister. Why or how did this somehow become a debate about Conservatives and / or privatisation?

Why is Frank Field?s suggestion so repulsive? Incentivising people to do what is wanted is normal behaviour in all walks of life. I won't deal with the case described in the letter ? it reads more like a morality play than real life and arguing from the specific to the general is not good logic. However, it is this sort of family / individual that needs help ? and would not be targeted under these proposals. Characterising the proposed change as an attack on disabled / disadvantaged people is very poor thinking. I believe the government proposals are flawed and won?t achieve all their objectives but the basic premise that society (not just government) should help those in real need and weed out those who seek to exploit the system, seems a worthwhile task to me. Every ?scrounger? who settles for IB for the rest of their potential working life is stealing funds and assistance from those that could really do with help and support. Taking your later point about three classes of benefit recipients: Class 1: Genuine individuals in need of major support and assistance, possibly for life. (as per Guardian letter) Class 2: Subjective cases which need retraining ? and could return to paid work Class 3: Out and out scroungers There are reputed to be 2.5 million people on Incapacity Benefit. At present few have any real help, beyond basic financial help, to get off the IB and into work. Assume one Social Security area is responsible for 50,000 such people, with a staff / client ratio of 1 : 100, that?s 500 staff. If each client, at present, receives ?150 a week - that?s a ?390 million pa benefits cost. If 20% of the 50,000 people were in classes 2 & 3 and are helped to get off benefits and back into work that would mean 10,000 people regaining the dignity and self belief that your letter writer bemoans the loss of. It is also a potential saving of ?78 million. Putting, say, ?5 million into the incentivisation pool is the equivalent of ?10,000 per member of staff ? why would you argue with rewarding staff for assisting that 20% out of benefits and ensuring the remaining 80% benefit from improved staff / client ratios at the very least? Equally it also leaves ?73 million to be used to do one, some or all of the following: a. Increase benefits for those that really need them ? benefits could be increased by almost 20% at no further cost to the Exchequer or taxpayer if all ?73 million were used in this way. b. Reduce the cost of the benefits / tax system c. Invest in appropriate businesses that some of the people in Class 1 could perhaps work in, something like the Poppy Appeal factory in Richmond and similar organisations elsewhere (tho' the Gov't withdrew support for many of these about 18 months ago). SCaled up the total "savings" for re-investment in some form or other would be roughly ?3.5 billion - that would allow the government to re-instate the 10p tax band.

I doubt anything Labour does will rescue its fortunes. Frank Field doesn't rate this initiative and he's thought longer and harder about this issue than almost any politician. Some of the ideas may have some resonance for the "reasonable" person but implementing the changes will rely upon some poor benighted front line official in DWP who won't be given the necessary training or back up, will be reluctant to confront and, 9 times out of 10, will duck the issue. It's very unlikely that this initiative will either: a. Put more people back into work (and bringing it in just as jobs are drying up isn't the most strategic of moves either - where is the work that these "scroungers" are going to take up to come from?) b. Reduce the costs of state benefits in any significant fashion. I liked Frank Field's idea (in The Times today) of making each Social Security office a profit centre - with staff incentivised to reduce cost of benefits and increase numbers in work. Profits made to be shared with the State and staff.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He's a great actor. You may have seen his arse, > but I'll never forget seeing his Henry in all its > glory at the National. Seconded - I saw that show too and it was a fabulous performance.

Re reading Birdsong - it remains as good as the first time I read it. Strong, erotic scenes are counterpoised with stark realities of trench life and death in WW1.

There's still a Test Match or two to be played yet - I thought Football was in hiberbnation until the Autumn - some hopes!

Captain Jack Aubrey in the inimitable Patrick O' Brian "Master & Commander" series or alternatively "Commander Bond"

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to disappoint MM, it's the start of the > school hols, they've probably all gone to > Cornwall. Oh well - back to queuing in September. BTW - I holiday in Cornwall but have been doing so since 1957, not trendy therefore, just unadventurous.

Is the length of the W Rose queue a measure of economic gloom? It was at its shortest I've seen it today at 9.15, which is when I usually start to shop on LL on a Saturday. In and out with 10 minutes - an all comers record. Good news therefore - shorter queues at W Rose and the value for money remains great - good quality at fair prices.

Always a good outing. Always go.

Keef - you could start with a small mobile creperie. We hired one years ago in the Midlands fo a school fete. Set it up on LL - or maybe the Warehouse thingy - if it goes well you'll hae a client base and can gradually grow and become a franchise at which point, almost, everyone of EDF will despise you!

I get this prblem too. How do I "Reset Posts" as above?

Met them all except the Queen. Phillip - good guy, like a slightly eccentric uncle who gives you a large G&T when you're 16. Andrew - w***** and a very average helicopter pilot. You have to be pretty bad not to be selected for promotion when you're the only Royal Prince in the Navy. Edward - t** Charles - uptight with a very slightly average intelligence. Couldn't navigate and once spilt my beer in the bar. Anne - good egg. Not beautiful I'd agree but she has spirit and opinions. Gets things done.

And I thought this was about the time John Wayne visited East Dulwich!

The invisible man?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ MM > > For a decent fish restaurant (albeit a French one) > try the Lobster Pot in Kennington. Is it still there - I remember it when I lived in Kennington 20 years ago but assumed - without checking that it had passed on.

Two points (and a minor third) 1. Steak is easy to cook (tho' many restaurants seem to fail to do it properly) - a one item menu (albeit several different cuts) always strikes me as unadventurous. Surely the trick for a restauranter is to encourage return visits - an ever changing menu helps with this. 2. A decent fish restuarant (think Rick Stein's on a more inland / lower cost basis) would be a different matter. Shellfish, fish soups, various species, cuts and cooking options - including perhas a really good seafood pie, Omelette Arnold Bennett, smoked eel, devilled crab, soft shelled crab and so on - now that would attract me and I do not know of one in the area outside of central London. 3. Sean McG speaks of the Onglet - an underated cut, also known as the butcher's steak, with 5 of 6 friends choosing it (on my recommendation) for dinner on Saturday night at the Blue Print Cafe I can vouch, yet again, for this steak cut. Cooked quickly on a very high heat the outside was charred but the inside meltingly rare - served with watercress salad and horseradish cream - just superb. PS: There's just one onglet (of about 1 - 2 Kilo per beast) so it will always be a rarity on menus.

If you read the artyicle rather than the headlines it says he is considering - that instinctively he supports better urban spaces and public control of them but has, sensibly, taken account of the TFL analysis that it will create traffic congestion - which is not what the City needs. So not an absolute "NO" - more a cautious "I'd like to help but still need to think about it".

Regret 17th now clashes with my one and only chance to see Leonard Cohen live at the O2. Apologies to Curry Club but he's a better draw than Lamb Pasanda & naan. PS: One ticket for LC available - but I paid ?160 for two!!

It's been worse - my first international political awareness came through listening to parents and radio report on the Cuban Missile Crisis - that was scary. Add in since then Vietnam, Chernobyl, East European wars, civil wars and genocide not to mention the many Arab / Isreali conflicts and other wars snd you can see that the world has always been teetering on the edge of danger / the apocalypse or armegeddon.

Parenthood has been fine - and for those that stay the course there's a reward. My now 18 year old son bought his father a beer for the first time very soon after his birthday. Of course he borrowed the money to pay for it but it was a defining moment! I look forward to evenings in the pub in the company of my sons.

On Uplands Road there are two premises vacant - the one next to Blue Mountain has intrigued me for some while. Is anything ever going to happent there? On opposite side of the road - what's taking over at what was Jeannie Avente - lots of interior work being doen?

I prefer the A303 route - that way you get to see Stonehenge and the stops for snacks are better. Can recommend the Lamb at Hindon having been a regular for 20 years, it has changed over time but still a lovely pub. When we had very small children (as opposed to hulking teenagers) the Little Chef near Stonehenge was always a handy stopover - not sure what it would be like now Heston Blumenthal has a hand in Little Chef menus. Once in Cornwall recommend the following: Surf - anywhere on North Coast - but nice & safe for smaller children in Harlyn Bay. Eat fish & chips in Port Isaac on a THursday evening listening to the St Breward Silver Band playing on the Platt. Visit the Bush Inn at Morwenstow - and walk along the cliff top to Hawkers Hut - the lookout of Reverend Hawker, an eccentric vicar cum poet, who saved many lives of shiprecked sailors on the North Cornish coast and buried others in his churchyard at Morwenstow. He also wrote "The Song of the Western Men" or "Shall Trelawney Die" - often sung at Twickenham when Cornwall rugby is in the ascendant. Crabbing in Padstow inner Harbour Lusty Glaze for adventurous teenagers - climbing, surfing, rope slides. Watch the sun set over Watergate Bay (if feeling very flush do so from inside Fifteen - Jamie Oliver's restaurant that faces West on the beach) Get away from it all on Constantine Bay - no beach shop, ice creams, pubs - nothing except great sea, sand and huge sand dunes for sliding down. Kite Boarding / Kite surfing - Watergate Bay Deep sea fishing - never yet caught a shark but caught many mackerel, pollock and occasional bass, for subsequent bar be que Eden Project if it rains = tho' the queues can get horrendous Lands End - for tacky photos Near Lands End for the Minack Open Air Theatre with the Atlantic as a backdrop. Eat a cream tea (or two or three) Eat a pasty - PAdstow / Wadebridge have best pasty shops. One to miss - Bodmin Prison Museum. It's so bad it's almost worthy of a special award.