Marmora Man

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Indeed you even undermine your whole point by > saying how important defence is to you - yet for > many people we could save near trillions by > scaling the whole operation back. Not Trillions - Defence Budget approx ?40billion pa, so 25 years would equate to ?1 Trillion. I'm not suggesting it be expanded or that, de facto, defence spending is a necessary good. However, if the Gov't persists in engaging in unnecessary wars it should fund the troops properly. 10 years ago I proposed the privatisation / outssourcing of the Armed Forces. I may still have a copy of the paper, if so I'll PM it to you. The strong defence phrase was also an ironic historical reference to Tory aims of the 19th century > > I don't want (and that's too weak a phrase to > fully express how I feel) a much tinier > government, with a low tax rate and all of the > "services" "managed" by private companies. Private > companies with shareholders. And a captive market. > Where those companies merge and become a monopoly. > With shareholders to feed. > Again - that's not what I'm suggesting - there are more than two alternatives - it is not big government versus private greedy corporations (and by the way - the assumption that business / shareholders are a bad thing may be as weak an argument as you claim mine is for smaller government). Before healthcare in this country was nationalised in 1948 every village, town and city had a range of provision that encompassed the local GP and nurse, charitable hospitals, locally funded hospitals, privately funded hospitals. The creation of Saturday Clubs pre-dated the creation of BUPA to allow people to provide an insurance for health costs. Similarly education - church schools, charitable schools, bursaries - all managed to provide an education service with minimal government input. > Running a country IS a big operation - why shy > away from that? And a country this big can > certainly afford it (even if the burden is too > much on the less well off at the moment) Since 1945 the concept of the State running much of life has been tested to detruction and, in my view failed. Where are the successes of central planning and control? Powerful state = weak individuals. Powerful individuals = weak state. A powerfulstate introduces ID cards, monitors your every movement on CCTV, wants to monitor every e-mail and keystroke on your PC, tells you how many apples to eat each week, how many units of alcohol are allowed, tells your child what to study at school, rations your access to healthcare and education. I could go on. Why do many on the left assume central state / government decisions are better than a mass of individual decisions, that individuals cannot be relied upon to "do the right thing" and will become self interested brutes? This is at the same time both a pretty disappointing set of beliefs and rank hypocrisy - since it implies "they" know better then "them". I don't seek to make decisions for you and I don't wish others to make decisions for me - unless I have chosen to approach them for advice or help. My position is that we should not accept blindly that State provision is best - we should constantly question whether we are getting value for money. We do that every day when we make decisions about personal spending on all types of goods. Tax is another form of spending - are we getting value for money - would be do better with a high cost, low quality or a lower cost / same quality - or best of all - lower cost / higher quaity service? Some level of goverment control and spending is necessary - I contend that we should reduce it to a minimum. > Let's just say you achieve your libertarian aims - > and you have a 10p tax rate with a smaller > government. How exactly will your life be better? Everyone will have more money in their pocket to do with as they wish. An individual may choose to reduce their working hours and devote the spare time to good works, fishing, running a scout troop or just sitting and thinking. They might choose to spend the extra money on art, books, fine wine - they may donate it to a charity, they might save until they have enough to endow a college, they might just p*** it up against the wall - their choice. That, to my mind equates to greater freedom - with greater freedom everyone benefits. We've had this argument before. Government management and spending is inherently inefficient, individual spending is more efficient. Edited for emphasis.

dc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The British Potato Council is one of a number of > 'Levy Boards'. It's an industry organisation paid > for entirely by producers and wholesale purchasers > of potatoes. So, no, we wouldn't suffer if it went > but, as none of our taxes are being used to pay > for it anyway, we're not suffering now are we? The > British potato industry just might be a little bit > miffed I suppose. If potato producers are required to pay a levy - that is a cost to them. In the same way that staff, seed, harvesting etc is a cost. When they sell their potatoes they recover those costs + their margin. So ultimately the Potato Board Levy comes thru' as a tax on potato consumers. As for Northants Development Corporation - how many layers of government do we need? Every unnecessary councillor is a tax on everyone.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM - you recently asked what it was about lefties > that made them worried about right wing policies > > You've just answered the question for me.. > > > Jesus if I ever calm down I might even make a > proper argument out of this... Sean - you have misread my argument. I don't doubt that things are better today than they were 100 years ago. I am not proposing a return to government expenditure of 5% of GDP. My point is that government is too big and that by trying to manage almost everything it fails to do anything very well. I question the thinking that believes government must "do something". There was an effective healthcare service before the NHS, there was an effective education service before Rab Butler's act in 1944. Question - do you think the country will really miss or suffer if the British Potato Council or the West Northants Development Corporation were to be disbanded? If you agree we could lose them without worrying perhaps there are grounds for reviewing further the need for other such organisations? I may wish to go further than you would - but surely we can agree there is scope for action that would reduce government costs - why perhaps it could fund a 10p tax band without recourse to borrowing. This is just a taster of a reply - I'm waiting to test opinions and arguments more fully - its time to have a good political thread again. Remember I'm not a right wing bastard - I'm a libertarian. By instinct I want the minimum of state interference in peoples lives, but I do accept that there needs to be assistance for those that are unable to help themselves for whatever reason. PS: The strong defence bit is a personal "thing" - an ex service man I am frustrated that this government thinks it can deploy military personnel unthinkingly as a kind of international moral police force / fire brigade yet at the same time leave them underfunded and ill equipped. The latest ideas of reviving the Royal Tournament and making attacks on military personnel in uniform an aggravated offence are just petty and, almost, face saving gestures.

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm all for efficiency and cost effectiveness but > surely 700k people in employment is a good thing > and the majority of these Quango's provide an > important service which would never be funded > commercially. Muddled thinking Lozzy - people on the government payroll are a cost. I don't doubt that the government must employ some people to direct its business but its purpose must not be simply to give them a salary - they should generate value (in the broadest sense - not strictly financial).

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is Mamora Man's employment at least partially > funded by a quango? Absolutely not - I work for a private company, created 12 years ago in someone's spare room.

Libertarians Unite! Small government, strong defence, low taxes. In this weekend's Sunday Times, the Tax Payers Alliance launched the full list of the UK?s quango industry, a detailed run-down of the staff and cost of the 1,162 bodies, boards and agencies that make up Britain?s Unseen Government. It is now five years since the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Administration recommended that the Government publish such a list, a recommendation that the Government has failed to fulfil. In the absence of an official list, the TPA has compiled one instead, providing the public with the most comprehensive information available on the organisations that increasingly spend their money and influence their lives without democratic oversight. ? The report is the first in a series of papers on the Structure of British Government and the problems caused by?its?bewildering scale, staggering range of activities and chaotic duplication. ? The full report can be read here. ? The key findings of the report are: ? There are 1,162 quangos in the UK, running at a total cost to the taxpayer of ?64 billion, equivalent to ?2,550 per household. Even under the Cabinet Office?s restrictive definition of quangos, the cost of these bodies has risen 50% in the last ten years. UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats. Even the Government itself does not know the full extent of the unaccountable quango industry, which ranges from the massive e.g. Job Centre Plus (Staff: 70,042, Cost: ?3.5 billion) the Courts Service (Staff: 19,986, Cost: ?704.8 million); to the bizarre e.g. the British Potato Council (Staff: 49); the West Northants Development Corporation (Staff: 34, Cost: ?15.3 million) When the total number of quangos is added to the other government subsidiaries such as local authorities and NHS trusts, the total number of organisations controlled by the UK Government rises to 2,063, costing the taxpayer ?257 billion and employing over 5.1 million people. Wider Context: UK Government - impossible to manage Over the past hundred years Britain has witnessed a relentless increase in?the size of government. Politicians have steadily taken responsibility and authority away from civil society, establishing a presence in every aspect of British life. Government today spends 45.1 per cent of Britain?s GDP, employs nearly 20 per cent of the UK workforce and regulates or provides almost every service available to UK citizens. Too large: Government employs just under 6 million people and has an annual expenditure of almost ?600 billion. Twenty senior ministers and around 500,000 civil servants oversee 1,162 public bodies, 365 NHS Trusts, 469 Local Authorities, 60 police forces (140,500 officers) and countless other local and regional spending bodies. No-one could effectively manage such an organisation, and as such British government suffers from terrible inefficiencies, waste, and ultimately depreciation in the quality of services provided. Too diverse: Effective management requires an in-depth knowledge of the sector in which the organisation operates, its customers and processes. Yet the breadth of government today makes this impossible. No Minister, or anyone else, could have sufficient knowledge to agree the vision, objectives, plans and budgets for any department of government; their interests are just too diverse. For example, the predecessor to today?s Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), the Department of Trade and Industry, in 2006-07 managed an expenditure of ?23 billion, 244,000 staff (there are only four FTSE companies larger) and 68 subsidiary public bodies ? advising on everything from employment, architectural design to chemical weapons, not to mention the activities of two major British corporations, Royal Mail and Remploy. Astonishingly, the DTI still only constituted a small unit of government, accounting for only 3% of total staff and 4% of total expenditure. Monopoly services: Free from the threat of customer loss or bankruptcy, monopolies remove the basic tools of management ? the need to innovate, improve and reduce costs. The services government provides ? education and health in particular ? exist as monopolies, presenting the majority of tax payers with little choice and ever sinking standards. Judge on the outcomes ? Failing public services The inadequacies of our current structure of government are clear when the quality of services is considered. Education: Four out of ten pupils in state education now leave school without the minimum standards in English and Maths that the QCA deems necessary for ?Life, Learning and Work?. After 11 years of schooling, at a total cost of ?75,000, the state system fails to provide individuals with the means necessary to succeed, trapping them in poverty and dependency. Year on year, British educational standards fall in comparison to other wealthy countries. Healthcare: The standard of care provided by the National Health Service is now ranked 16 in a comparison of 19 peer countries. In 2004 alone, 17,157 deaths amenable to healthcare occurred in the NHS, which would have been avoided in Britain matched the performance of European peers. Levels of hospital-acquired infections are among the highest in Europe and waiting times continue to force people abroad for treatment. Welfare: The complex system of tax credits, allowances and income support has created a welfare trap, while at the same time necessitating a large and costly bureaucracy to administer it. Nothing but fundamental structural reform can reverse the trend of declining standards in our public services. Government is poorly designed to deliver the services which people deserve, and after a decade of spending, money alone is clearly not the answer. The principles of reform 1. To give the public a higher quality and wider choice of services at a greatly reduced cost, and most importantly, return control over their lives: 2. Politicians, advised by a small, informed team of civil servants, should set high level policy. This is the area where they can make a real contribution, freeing them from day to day management responsibilities. 3. Civil society, employing experienced management, should execute that policy.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I often say, 90% of everything is shit, this is > particularly true of people, especially when given > a uniform and a leeeetle bit of power. For French speakers - try this website Life is Shit

By coincidence I have just attended a Safety For Senior Executives Health & Safety training day. Your man - undoubtedly badly dressed in a polyester Action Man style security outfit was completely in the wrong. Health and Safety is about assessing risk and taking appropriate and reasonable action to avoid unnecessary risk to employees and the public. Wearing an iPod cannot be covered under that umbrella. I recommend complaining to the Museum - which is, after all, dedicated to men and women that took real risks. A similar problem I encountered was discussed at the following Link

Steam for 5 - 6 minutes (less if very thin). Serve on its own with melted butter & salt - or if you're feeling flush hollandaise sauce. Maybe some fresh bread to mop up butter / sauce dregs.

Anything that begins with "and now I'd like to introduce Cherie Blair / Booth to talk about her new book"

For godsons (now mostly grown up) I've bought a good pair of cufflinks + a suitable child type thing (rattle / toy / clothes). The cufflinks are looked after by parents until lad hits about 16. How about earrings / necklace / bracelet bought as christening present but targeted at a 16 year old girl? On 18th birhthday I've then given tankard + ?50 note to fill it up a few times - not sure what a girlie equivalent might be?

LuvPeckham Wrote: ----------------------- > Peckham is home to the proper pub if you ask my > opinion (and as they have a functioning Pubwatch > in action, the first in the borough along with an > Information Sharing Protocol with a bared in one > bared in all policy making them a safe place to > drink as the landlords there take care to look > after their customers) > So if go topless in one pub I have to go topless in all pubs??

Going to Lords today. Lunch will bee an assortment of snacks purchased from Lordship Lane delis and accompanied by a good bottle of chilled wine. Ideally the sun would be shining - but there's little chance of that I'm afraid.

A mixed bag. Mrs MM and I visited last night. Decor and buzz felt good on entering. Home baked foccacia was dry and overcooked - the accompanying olive oil & balsamic was a smear of oil and a dribble of balsamic - exhausted before one piece of bread eaten. Starters - Mozzarella & tomato salad - mozzarella good and moist, tomatoes cold, flavourless and cut thru the equator - thus having green core in every slice. Calamari was excellent - tender squid with light and crispy batter. Mains - Seafood Linguine - tomato sauce had a nice chilli bite to it but seafood was disappointing - 4 mussels (two of which were stubbornly closed and not eaten), four clams, one discernible prawn and some squid rings. At nearly ?15 it was not good value for money. Board bean risotto was very bland, the stock in which it was cooked may just have been water for all the depth of flavour it imparted. Wine - first choice not available. A drinkable Sauvignon was OK but overpriced at nearly ?20. Service - patchy. Had to wait ages to order then starters and bread and wine and water all arrived almost simultaneously - creating something of a traffic jam on the small table. Verdict - what was done well was pleasing but overall not a place I'd make a regular haunt. Back to Si Mangia I think - more rustic, more friendly, better value for money.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's a "proper" pub? And what is an "honest" > pint? What CAMRA used to describe as a "one room boozer". Corner pub, one bar, 2 /3 handpulled beers labelled Mild / Bitter and Winter Warmer, small selection of spirits, one old man smoking roll ups, nursing half pint of mild and reading Racing Times, two old ladies in hairnets drinking port & lemon. Publican watching old black & white cowboy movies on very old TV. Last year's racing calendar, old Donald McGill postcards sent from Margate and Southend. It's a kind of folk memory and not what today's punters want. Alternatively there's the "Moon under Water" as described by the old Etonian Eric Blair - aka Gorge Orwell, which if it could be dscovered / was real would be everyone's platonic ideal of a pub.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And so did the tories. So why not find an > alternative? Democracy gives everyone the opportunity to provide an alternative. I'm a (very) small scale political activist - I'd prefer a libertarian government but am prepared to support a conservative government as the closest to my desires and, by being involved, I can try to persuade them to move toward my ideal set of policies. There are many smaller political parties to choose from, most cannot attract sufficient number of voters and welcome new comers. However, if you personally have a coherent set of policies - and can persuade sufficient people of the validity of your ideas, then off you go and form your own party. Criticism is easy - action is harder

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All that spam... did you have to drink engine oil > to keep yourselves "regular"? No I sort of lived in a cross between an engine room and a caravan - with hydraulic fluid and diesel oil everywhere. See pictures at HMS ONYX

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In a fair & just society, there would be no real > advantage in spending your ? to send your > offspring to a private school and they would > wither and die > This was beginning to happen in the 60's - then Tony Crossland Labour Minister for Education (ex public school / Oxbridge) pledged to get rid of "every f****** grammar school" and experiment with the comprehensive system. Market forces ruled and as selective education was phased out a parallel growth of independent schooling began. If a similar effort had been put into improving the effective but sometimes flawed the Grammar / Technical / Secondary Modern system the public schools (probably with the exception of a few "old school tie" places) would, indeed, have withered away. I went to a country grammar school from a village primary. The primary had 90 children,six classes and three teachers, no privilege there. The grammar school prided itself on always placing one or two 6th formers, and in good years more, at Oxbridge, often via scholarships. It did not have to abide by an National Curriculum and masters (the good ones) were able to enthuse pupils with their subjects. Britain had a good working education system in the 60's: it needed some minor improvements but it was ruined by political ideology - and some of the rhetoric on this thread smacks of the same ideology. Nationalising education isn't the way to go - greater freedom is the future. Abolish the national curriculum, let funds follow the pupil, let parents groups, churches, and businesses set up schools, allow schools to flourish or fail.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you ex-forces MM? > > Spam seems to be endemic in the cuisine served to > all three. An old sailor that's me. And yes - spam was endemic - fried, stewed, cold in sandwiches, cubed in rice (closest we cam to a chinese meal).

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London Grill... maybe the best thing to come out > of a tin EVER. But have you ever tried individual sized tinned STeak & KIdney Pudding? Fondly known in the Royal Navy as "Babies Heads". Then there was sauteed kidneys on fried bread "S*** on a raft", Sausage, Bacon, Fried Egg and Tinned tomatoes "Train Smash", circular Spam FRitters "Elephant's Footprints" and my favourite, Black Pudding - with a totally non PC title.

Watergate Bay The best beach I know is Watergate Bay - 2 miles of sand facing due west in Cornwall. Great surfer dude style, good but expensive hotel, cheapo surfer barns, camp sites, B&Bs, Jamie Oliver 15 restaurant or fish & chips / pizzas. Newquay 4 mils away if you want to party all night. The Extreme Academy gives you all kinds of hrills We can now do it in 4.5 hours from hitting M3. M3 - A303 - A30.

But how many of these would you be prepared to actually employ / work with / work for? For my money - none of them. Great TV tho' and I try not to miss it. Was thinking last night the buying / bartering task would make a great charity fundraiser. Say 20 teams from the bigger companies in London all paying ?10,000 to enter their "bright young things" for PR and the challenge. Give them each ?500 in cash and invite them to buy a list of obscure items.

Do Doctors Brag? An Israeli doctor says 'Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks.' A German doctor says 'That is nothing, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks. A Russian doctor says 'In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks.' The Texas doctor, not to be outdone, says 'You guys are way behind, we recently took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him in the White House for eight years, and now half the country is looking for work.'

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aquick point regarding the bendy buses. I have > been on trams in various cities that use the > "bendy" style design, and think they work > brilliantly in that format, and sticking to a > designated track. I just don't think that they > work particularly well negotiating the steets of > London (inner or outer) when you have all sorts of > people doing all sorts of things on the roads, > like parking on a corner to unload a lorry. It > just makes them a total nightmare IMO. Plus - as far as I can despite taking up twice the road space they carry, essentially, the same numbe of people.

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it not usual to put a large technical project > out to tender so that firms can compete to win the > business? I'm not sure that Boris meant that > herds of schoolchildren would be designing them > using loo rolls and sticky-backed plastic. > Or am I missing some irony here...it is early, > after all. I agree with you Moos - that's what I read the term competition to mean.