Marmora Man

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think "drinking on benefits" could be a more > enjoyable challenge There's plenty of calories

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will MM be allowed to utilise the truffle oil, > beluga caviar and 25 yr old single malt he's got > stashed in the cupboard this week? And none of > those hand rolled cuban cigars either! No caviar and I don't smoke, but I do pride myself on a good selection of malt whiskies.

All in all it seems a budget of about ?20.00 a head seems to be he consensus. I'll see what I can achieve.

spadetownboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and what is the point,to make one feel good about > ones self,to wonder why are these scrouging > bastards whinging on about why they cant survive > on this pittance while i can for a week/month. let > me know because at the ,moment i cant see it. The question and subsequent personal challenge arose out f a discussion with an elderly Telegraph reading person who was bemoaning the fecklessness and poor eating of a single mother of my acquaintance. I wanted to understand how difficult it was / is to get by on benefits - but having no personal experience turned the the EDF for advice. Yes - it smacks, a little, of poverty tourism but trying to experience the reality - even for just a week - would help me both understand and respond more fully.

My original question was how much was left for food after such costs - the answer was ?100. If there's a more accurate figure I'd try to live on that. It would also be necessary to discount the weekly sum by about 10% to account for less regular purchases such s flour, oil, rice etc.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- That said I think the original post is well-intentioned (but it might appear to some as poverty-tourism?). It's a good exercise anyway given how much food is wasted generally It certainly was well intentioned. While I agree a month is a better test / taste of the issues involved I doubt many would rise to the challenge. It could be a charity fund raising effort if anyone taking part donated the savings made by the difference between their usual week's housekeeping and the benefit level. I believe I could feed Mrs MM & I for a week for ?100 - It would be an intriguing task and would undoubtedly feature less inch thick W Rose sirloin steaks, less wine & whisky and more cheap protein such as chicken plus interesting ways with leftovers and mince. Might even lose me a few pounds weight - which would be helpful. Regarding Asset's Daily Mail basket - I wonder what the prices would be if bought along Lordship Lane rather than a supermarket. I believe it would be less - or at least better quality for same price.

I don't know what the current benefits system allows for a unemployed couple to live no. Can anyone advise? Reason - I am one of many contributors to threads on the forum about the quality of food available in ED and an equal number on the advisability of using good ingredients, good cooking and so on. Question - is it possible to eat well on benefits? To answer this requires first a knowledge of the benefits available, then setting of a budget to determine what is left for food after paying utilities, housing, travel and putting something aside for clothing, occasional treats. Armed with this knowledge I would be happy to take part in a challenge to the EDF gourmets / gourmands to try to live on the money for a week.

Ms B Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But my main reason for loving it (as I've already > bored people with on another thread recently, > sorry) is because the employees co-own the > company, they all - from MD to shelf-stackers - > get the same bonus as a percentage of salary, > employees are given management information and > involved in management decisions, and the > business's primary objective according to their > written constitution (for apparently they have > one) is to make the employees happy - commercial > success is the route to this, not an end in > itself. They also treat their suppliers fairly. > And they've been doing this for about 100 years. > Bloody marvellous. My niece and her husband work for Waitrose and do enjoy the bonus you describe. Not only that their general approach to all staff matters is, in their experience excellent. When my niece had cancer in '06 Waitrose / John Lewis looked after her welfare very well and gave her husband lots of compassionate time off to care for her and visit London for specialist care.

The distance from London (City & West End) is a great plus. A trip to the West End (theatre or cinema) and train from Charing Cross means I can be home within 35 minutes of leaving the show. All of London, shows, museums, streets, sights, sounds and life becomes available after just a short bus or train ride on a cheap day ticket - antiques in Portobello Road, flowers at Columbia Market, food at Borough market and so on. I can cycle to work from ED - good for my fitness and my wallet. I like the fact that I can, almost, buy everything I need in terms of food and general household goods on / near Lordship Lane and that, as a consequence, shopkeepers and regular customers know me and I know them. The parks are excellent and both (Dulwich and Peckham Rye) now have a good cafe to sit in and watch the world go by. I like to shops on Peckham Rye - and the cafes / restaurants on LL. I can't see too many downsides at all. Perfection might involve a good local distillery and a crystal clear river with wild trout - but their absence gives me a reason to travel elsewhere.

I agree the Judiciary should be somewhere on the list - tho' in theory it's nominally independent of, but funded by, government. To make a political point - the last 10 years of New Labour have probably done more to damage that independence than the previous 200 years. On economies of scale - granted - but you have to go some to obtain 20% economies, and that assumes the rest fo gov't is efficient.

I'm with Sean MacG here. Food is an important part of our lives - like Sean I do OK these days and can afford the foodie treats available on LL. But on a lower income I did search out value for money good food. If life were to change for the worse good food - albeit cheaper cuts and styles would remain important. Spending ?1.00 on crap food wastes ?1.00, spend ?1.00 on two decent potatoes and some cheese and you have a tasty nutritious meal. I don't go for the organic argument and won't pay an automatic premium for the label - but when shopping in Pretty Traditional, William Rose and elsewhere I'll choose what looks good or tastes good (if I'm allowed a taster - which is another good argument for not shopping in supermarkets - you never get a taster). Sometimes organic, sometimes not. I would only differ from Sean MacG on sliced white for breakfast - how could you! It becomes just a platform for something else and has no flavour, taste of texture to savour. Blackbird bakery sourdough bread (?2.50 a loaf - lasts the MM household three days) toasted with just a sliver of butter is part of breakfast heaven.

We seem to have drifted away from quangos - but that's fine. If the premise is that untrammeled power is a bad thing I would have to agree. My position is that untrammeled government power is a bad thing. Certainly as bad, and in my opinion worse, than untrammeled business power. Unquestioning support / belief in the benevolent intentions of government and the state to direct our lives and spend our money is foolish. The argument that we can vote them out if we don't like it is flim flam - government spending and inexorable growth of government spending is culturally embedded in the civil service and politicians. It is not helped by the various lobby groups pressing for government to "do something". To roll back the size and cost of the state is a huge challenge, but one we should take up. Individuals making masses of contradictory single decisions will more usually come up with the right answers than central dictat. It was individuals that started and led the anti slavery campaigns not government, individuals that created businesses that give employment and dignity to so many, individuals that founded the original hospitals. On the whole individuals cannot start wars, governments can and do. Government does not generate wealth creation ? and the benefits ???? describes. It inhibits it. Government spending is inherently inefficient ? and not just because most politiians are unable to run a whelk stall for profit. For the government to obtain ?1,000,000 to spend it must raise taxes. To raise taxes it must legislate, administer, collect, prioritise and distribute, all of which costs money. It has been estimated (and I regret I cannot find the academic references at this time in the morning) that these costs impose something like a 20% cost on government money. Therefore government spending of taxpayers money on anything from services to goods is an inefficient use of the country?s GDP. Since every ?1 of government money costs at least ?1.20 (and that assumes total efficiency and effectiveness of decision making and purchasing within government departments). Reducing government to the minimum necessary, and there?s a great debate to be had on where the line should be drawn, would generate a major benefit to the UK?s GDP and overall economic status. In my ideal world the Government / the state would be minimal and provide only things like: Welfare for those unable to help themselves The armed forces (and I'm prepared to see these "privatised" under regulation) Diplomacy Collection of limited taxes Regulation and monitoring, but not provision, of services such as education, health, employment, health and safety, transport And not a lot else I'm sure others will disagree.

Many of the critiques of Locale were, reasonably balanced, many were also positive - albeit about a perceived competitor - Si Mangia. I certainly was and, I like to think, my comments on Locale were constructive criticism - balancing the positive with the less positive.

dc Wrote: > Frankly, I think you should spend a lot more time > on the details and a little less time > regurgitating what is effectively propagandist > rhetoric or - for want of a better word - shite. Play the ball not the man. My basic premise on this thread and elswhere on this forum is that government should be smaller and taxes lower - giving the individual greater freedom of choice as to what to do with their time and resources. The Tax Payers Alliance is a pressure group and lobbies on behalf of consumers - that doesn't make its position or statements invalid.

BJL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In any commercial business, the aim is to pass on > costs to the consumer. So, using the "BPC levy > argument", expenses like company cars, non-economy > class air travel, private health care, bonuses etc > are also "a tax on...consumers" - correct, MM? A Levy Board is funded by a levy on, in this case, potato producers. Government legislation estbalishes the Levy Board and sets the levy fee by statute. No choice for the producer - it is therefore a tax on producers and consumers. It may be that the Potato Board does wonderful things and is worth every penny, but it does represent Government spending and it, and many similar institutions should be questioned as to value for money for us the taxpayer.

Buying and selling of wives used to be an English country "common law" event in 17th / 18th centuries I think - tho' I'm not sure how much truth there is in the stories. IT is referred to in Thomas HArdy novels. Nice to hear of it updated for 21st century.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The tyre place will be a permanent home for the > bakers who currently sell outside Moxon's > > Glad to see the old Access sign is still up above > the shop mind you! I think the tyre place is becoming a greengrocers - possibly as part of Franklins. It's the Chicken Licken that's becoming the bakery.

CamberwellOz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just bought some beef brisket because it was on > special. Any ideas? Pot roast.

I'd like a large family that had a good plumber, a good electrician, a good carpenter and a good builder within their ranks, always anxious to help out their neighbour at he drop of a hat in return for a few beers.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > But the truth is, despite what economic thinking > would have us believe, is that people do not do a > cost/benefit analysis on everything they do. Few do it consciously - but most of us do it unconsciously every day - shall I walk or take the bus? Shall I eat in / out tonight? Am I happy for my child to be schooled down the road or do I forego my annual holiday to send him / her to the local prep? Etc Etc ETc > The kind of bespoke private solutions favoured by > MM and DaveR work, not because of any superior > methodology within business, but precisely because > they don't have to look after 50-60 million > people. If a problem with the NHS is nurses on a > minimum wage then let's pay them more - be it from > the defence budget or higher taxes. Even if, as you believe but I would dispute, private business methodology is no better - if they work and the results are better why choose a less effective alternative? > Private companies NEED big government. They are > the biggest welfare mothers in the country. If > they paid the legitimate taxes they owe and didn't > set up off-shore tax havens, then we might see a > lower base rate of income tax for the individual. Now you are talking about regulating - which can be an appropriate role for government / state. I question this, apparently instinctive, dismissaal of buiness as bad and in need of regulation by the good guys. However, you need to define "legitimate taxes". Very few companies go for tax evasion - but many legitimately minimise tax bills because legislators cannot draft cler and comprehensive legislation. However, if the State had a smaller role - taxes would be lower, the incentive to avoid paying would be less and tax take would improve. cf: Laffer Curve theory > But let's imagine utopia - let's imagine not 10% > tax, but 0% tax - now if only there were places > where that was true so we could see what > marvellous societies exist there - oh look Of the states nominated - several are currently experiencing major turmoil, famine, devastation and civil war - unlikely to be the result of tax legislation. Others, quite properly, tax the companies that use the services of the tax haven they have created - this would, I think, accord with your views that business should pay taxes? In the UAE they use oil revenue, business taxes and ex pat taxes to avoid having to tax nationals. The state is quite small and individual freedom to spend their money as they wish correspondingly high - however, the nature of Islamic government does create other restrictions on individual liberty that you and I would probably resent, but that's not the fault of the tax system. > Heaven?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now, Governments hold receptions - wine is drunk. > Would you prefer all heads of state to have tap > water? > > And it costs ?8k a year. > > Next! OK - hands up - a very poor example! I should stick to the bigger picture and not devil in the details!

Spangles30 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please will this place NOT charge extra for soya > milk - and use a decent brand too. I would have to be paid, lots, to drink Soya milk.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Outsourcing armed forces = mercenaries? The basic premise was that the State should pay to maintain a standing Army, Navy and Air Force at a decent level of equipment and training. In the event the State wishes to deploy the troops the Chiefs of Staff would estimte the cost and inform Ministers. MInsiters ould then decide whether they could afford the cost. I'll see if there's a way to post the paper on this site - but I thinks its about 20 + pages so needs to be a link of some kind.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM, I reckon it's just you and me on this one. > Your basic point is echoed by Jamie Whyte in the > Times today - here > Thanks - I haven't seen the Times today. Nice to know I'm not totally alone in my campaign.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Health and education are not goods to be bought > and sold by the private sector like commodities. > They are intrinsic human needs and as such, I > believe, cannot be provided on a for-profit basis. > There is improvement needed, without doubt, but > the day MegaCorp run my local hospital or school > is the day I move to Venezuela Sweden. Why are they not commodities to be bought or sold. What is the intrinsic property that they have that makes them something that should not be traded? For the not so "forward thinking" there should and must be a system that provides but most people can think, plan and calculate what is best for them. Health and education are, in any case, already traded - Eton, Harrow, the private nursery down the road, etc are all providing education in return for fees. The majority of the schools concerned do not make a profit - many are charities (tho' this may change) dedicated to the provision of schooling. Funds in excess of costs are used to invest in other education activity. Ditto health - I can use a private GP, a private hospital - in these cases some are doing it for profit, others are doing it in not for profit way. I am not proposing Mad Max style anarchy - merely a slightly smaller government. Two other points - I believe it is in Sweden that parents can opt to use state funds to create their own private schools -taking the actual management, but not funding, of education away from the State. Effectively parents trading with the state for education. Instead of the Potato Board as a whipping boy - where do you stand on the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee on the Purchase of Wine? (Apart perhaps from wanting to join the tasting panel?)