Loz

Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That's the wrong one - it's this one > > How do you do that clever thing where you embed a link into a normal sentence? Like this.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulvilleRes Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > this unique bit of listed history > > Is this the un-weathered lump of stone that was > "discovered" in 1922? ... that is almost certainly currently sited in the wrong place anyway.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...also, it assumes that there is capacity to > increase the number of apples such that you may > satiate demand and that that demand does not > itself increase with the introduction of more > apples. > > It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if > they're all grabbed by someone who is already > sitting on a sackful of the original ones. And if that was the case, I would thoroughly agree with you. Because that is when regulation would absolutely work and be a problem solver. But at the moment that is not the main issue. There primary issue at the moment is that there are just not enough apples.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with BrandNewGuy - Developers, given free reign will build 'luxury' flats over affordable > homes, because it's where the profit is... not least because they can be marketed to overseas > buyers. Where there are domestic restraints on supply, but huge latent demand from an > international market, as with London housing, you either let the market set a high price, (which > will leave UK citizens on an average income forever priced out of the Capital), or you > regulate the market to ensure that London remains a diverse, characterful and vibrant city If you have 15,000 people and 10,000 apples then you can piss about with 'solutions' as much as you like, but 15,000 people are not going to all get an apple unless you get more apples.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bring in rent controls, protected tenancies, limits on buy to let, restrictions on foreign > buyers, penalties for empty properties and more, and you'll certainly help tackle the crisis. I;m > not suggesting do all of those things, but without any of them, I doubt the market will solve the > housing crisis. Apart from limits on foreign buyers (and good luck defining that one) and penalties for empty properties (an extremely small percentage of properties), none of those measures do anything to reduce the primary factor - that more people want to live in London than there are houses. Those measures are, at best, just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic and at worst will have side-effects that will just exacerbate the situation. Only a fast, wide-ranging house building programme or a programme of moving jobs out of London will achieve a solution.

That's the wrong one - it's this one

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem is with much current development in London is that it's not 'affordable' to those who > most need it. Developers are not in the business of 'solving the housing crisis'. They realise that > the normal 'laws' of supply and demand often don't hold in housing because of the impact of foreign > buyers, access to credit etc. So they keep building and prices don't come down. But the point is that they are still not building enough. Foreign buyers/immigrants, cheap credit, buy to let, internal movement to London, whatever are not the direct cause. Normal 'laws' of supply and demand are *exactly* what is going on here. Prices will only stay high when demand >>> supply. Build *enough* more and prices will come down, but that's not happening so the market will raise prices to try and achieve some semblance of equilibrium. There is no economic gravity defying going on here.

stringvest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I get hazelnut seedlings planted by a squirrel !! My missus spent one spring leaving rather generous amounts of peanuts out for squirrels. I spent summer pulling up lots of small peanut plants.

LIMERICK, by Tim Vine There was an old man from Limerick, Who was completely unaware of the short often Humorous poems that shared the Same name as his home town.

Can you also get a Round Tuit?

Goldsmith vs Jowell. That would be great battle.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > > You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the private sector for service delivery. Whether one > > agrees with where and how they've chosen to do this is another debate. The point is, they are > > willing to accept private sector involvement or not, depending on the case. My point was that The > > Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state should commission services, not run them (a point > > you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a position which basically says, the state should > > not be involved in running services regardless of circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely > > ideological. > > So Loz, rather than trying to debate the merits of > individual privatisations, whats your respnse to my main point? My response is that you are again looking at Labour privatisations through rose-coloured glasses and your 'point' doesn't bear deeper scrutiny. The pace of privatisation did not at all slow during the Blair/Brown administrations (and, indeed, went where Major feared to tread). I cannot recall Labour ever reversing a Tory privatisation by policy, only when forced to by circumstances (i.e. Network Rail). The history of privatisation in the UK just does not support your view.

If you have Windows, you download a free program from Microsoft called Movie Maker. It's a bit simplistic, but good for small, uncomplicated edits and is pretty easy to use. If you want to do something more than Movie Maker can handle, then I use Sony Vegas. A friend used Adobe Premier. Both are good, but both have quite big learning curves, though.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They opposed sell off of Royal Mail and the con policy to force the sell off of housing assoc > stock at under market rates. More recently, the sell off of publically owned shares in Lloyds and > RBS (again, typically, at a loss to the taxpayer). Except Lloyds was sold off for a ?5bn profit and the selloff of Northern Rock/Bradford&Bingley made a further ?7bn profit. RBS will make a ?7bn loss. Plus Labour set up the Royal Mail for sale when they removed the mail monopoly and then wanted to sell 30% of RM, but didn't follow through with it. And they even tried before that - remember the Consignia shambles? Labour has only 'opposed' the sale of Royal Mail while they've been in opposition and, even then, never actually ruled it out. > I'm sure there are plenty of others, but that wasn't really my point. My point was that 'the > left' were accused first of being dogmatically opposed to all privatisation, then of being no > different in their position to privatisation than the right. I think they believe in a role for the > private sector, (but also the state) in running public services. That seems to me a more rational > and pragmatic premise. 'The left' are generally dogmatically opposed to all privatisation. Your mistake is thinking the current Labour party are left wing.

I think that is your biased observation. You seem to be saying that when Labour do a bad privatisation it is a 'mistake', but when the Tories do it it is 'dogmatism'? Where is the evidence for that statement? > You couldn't turn that around and accuse Labour of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. I would say there is little, if no difference, between Labour's view on privatisation and Tory. NHS, council housing, utilities have all been privatised, prepared for privatisation or listed for privatisation by Labour and Tory alike. In fact, it's worth noting, since the NHS is such a hot topic, that when Blair took office (i.e. post Thatcher/Major) there was little to no privatisation in the NHS. Yet, by 2008 that had changed markedly, especially though PPI. Can you list a few areas that Tories have privatised that Labour has refused to or - even better - reversed?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > wink wink Close...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - this ignores the fact that the previous two private operators failed to meet their financial > commitments and that over the next eight years there will be on going subsidies. And you are ignoring there would be exactly the same ongoing subsidies for DOR. You have to compare like with like. In fact, DOR received more, as they paid less for track access from Network Rail than the new operator will. You are also ignoring that Labour would have done exactly the same. > If you would like another example - the sell off of council housing is probably the most ridiculous > - houses disposed off at huge discounts, many of which are then rented back by local authorities at > private rates, or by individuals who then claim increased Housing benefit. This I agree with. It would have made some sense had the profits been ploughed back into social housing, but it didn't. I think social housing is a very good thing. Housing benefit is a very stupid idea and goes against my basic belief that it is better for governments to provide services than to give out cash. > Anyway, we could probably debate the rights and wrongs of individual sell off until the cows come > home, but I would be interested to know your view on my main contention; The Conservatives > fundamentally (and imo doggedly) believe that the state should commission services, not run them. I don't think that is a big secret. But the opposing question would be: when privatisation makes perfect sense, like in the East Coast mainline, is it just as short-sighted to ideologically oppose it? See that's the point - some things are better off privatised, some things aren't. The trick is choosing which is which, and neither the left or the right are terribly good at seeing this, as they are both too bogged down in ideology.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The conservatives on the other hand have time and again pursued ideologically driven interventions > across all manner of state services regardless of value for money or any sense of pragmatism. For > example, selling state assets at under market value, as well as profit making services (bringing > money into the exchequer), such as the east cost mainline. These are purely ideological decisions > based on a belief that the state should only commission services, not run them. East Coast mainline is a spectacularly bad example. As I posted on another thread... DOR (the 'nationalised' train operating company) made about ?200m per year for the exchequer. Virrgin are expected to pay ?3.3bn to the treasury over the upcoming eight years of the franchise. But the main problem was that DOR ran ECML during the "easy" phase of running a railway. There were some big costs coming up, which DOR by itself could not fund. DOR had been allowed to defer a major maintenance programme on it's rolling stock (which could be deferred no longer) and it could not afford to introduce the 65 new trains due in 2018 (replacing the current 39 and adding 50% more capacity). So, DOR's profits would have plummeted (if not become loss-making) during the upcoming phase and it would have needed an injection of money for investment. Thus the government wanted to get ECML back into private hands to cover those investment costs plus still get money into the exchequer. Labour would have almost certainly done the same thing for the same reasons. See? Sometimes 'bad looking' privatisations actually have very good financial reasons.

A picture of them would be useful (especially one showing the leaf). They may not be tree shoots.

'Cause I'm the Louisa, no I'm the real Louisa All you other Louisas are just imitating So won't the real Louisa please stand up, Please stand up, please stand up?

My mid-priced kettle has notched up about 15 years.

Well, the OP's posting history, for one.

I don't think anyone called Mallard should be hanging around gun clubs.

I think I've seen that movie. Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With water? > > Parkdrive Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Take three girls

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One system was mentioned specifically and mentioned in my example, but never let a fact get > in the way of your argument eh? In your example, yes. But the context of your original comment spanned all non-NHS countries as it was in answer to the original question - "what's so special about the NHS?". It was only when challenged you admitted your opinion was based on one example a long time ago. Are you actually admitting that there may actually be better health systems in other countries and that the NHS may not be special?