The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ian White wrote:


Making your movements flow and letting the subconscious take control
is important in lots of spheres of activity I've now decided.

There's a very useful term for that: "unaware intelligence". It
highlights the fact that some of our subconscious activity is
actually complex, high-level thinking - far above the level of
instincts and reactions (but with a good connection down to that
lower level too). We only discover how complex it is when we bring
it all to the surface, eg in a driving commentary.

Part of our unaware intelligence is that we can process information
that we aren't even aware of having taken in, and this probably
accounts for a lot of our "intuition" and "hunches". The Institute
of Advanced Motorists tell of a classic example:

"... I'm slowing for this blind bend. Oops, braking hard - there'll
be a horse!"

"How did you know?"

"Just before the bend, that pile of sh*t was still steaming."


Indeed. Birds flying up indicates human or predator activity,
reflections in windows helps see round blind corners..


Wasn't it Stirling Moss who said 'as I came round the corner, instead
of a sea of white faces looking at ME, it was a sea of dark heads
pointing up the track..I slowed down instinctively and managed to
avoid the crash that had already happened'.

WE are seriously good at pattern recognition. When the pattern
'doesn't fit' ..slow down and wake up. Something is going down..

We are very good indeed at pattern recognition. Magicians are well aware of
it & take advantage of the fact frequently.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

Same for one engine failing on takeoff..drop the prop back to feather
and pull the throttle, and make the testee fly it up to safe altitude
after a 'touch and go'

Aeroplanes not toys.
The simulators cost more than some £25k Cessna so they do simple stuff in
them.
It won't teach you anything about what happens when the wings are nearly
torn off by wind shear or what happens with icing or when both engines
fail.

Dennis, it is quite obvious from that statement that you have no history
in the aerospace industry.

An aircraft would have to suffer very extreme damage to have its wings
nearly torn off. Even then, there is enough integrity in the structure for
the aircraft to land, providing it can see the ground.

When an aircraft is made, there is a test bed, or three that does the
following.

1 The aircraft air frame is subjected to very intensive flight testing.
Most of this is done on the ground, in a rig that stresses it to find out
which bits are going to break first. This is done at a far greater flight
time of any aircraft that is in service. When something breaks,
instructions are sent out to all owners of that type of aircraft, so they
can examine it, to see if it is suffering the same problem. Usually as a
PWI (preliminary warning instruction) This then gets included in the
manufacturer recommended service schedule if feed back proves to be a
problem. Owners of that type of aircraft would be stupid to ignore this
PWI.

2 As a result of mechanical changes to the flying surfaces, a flying test
bed is used to provide info on how any changes could effect the aircraft's
flying capabilities.

3 Any controls and electronics on the aircraft and changes to them, by the
manufacturer, are logged so any owner, or operator is aware of any
problems.

What do any of those points have to do with what I said?

Dave

dennis@home wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

Same for one engine failing on takeoff..drop the prop back to
feather and pull the throttle, and make the testee fly it up to
safe altitude after a 'touch and go'

Aeroplanes not toys.
The simulators cost more than some £25k Cessna so they do simple
stuff in them.
It won't teach you anything about what happens when the wings are
nearly torn off by wind shear or what happens with icing or when
both engines fail.

Dennis, it is quite obvious from that statement that you have no
history in the aerospace industry.

An aircraft would have to suffer very extreme damage to have its
wings nearly torn off. Even then, there is enough integrity in the
structure for the aircraft to land, providing it can see the ground.

When an aircraft is made, there is a test bed, or three that does the
following.

1 The aircraft air frame is subjected to very intensive flight
testing. Most of this is done on the ground, in a rig that stresses
it to find out which bits are going to break first. This is done at
a far greater flight time of any aircraft that is in service. When
something breaks, instructions are sent out to all owners of that
type of aircraft, so they can examine it, to see if it is suffering
the same problem. Usually as a PWI (preliminary warning instruction)
This then gets included in the manufacturer recommended service
schedule if feed back proves to be a problem. Owners of that type of
aircraft would be stupid to ignore this PWI.

2 As a result of mechanical changes to the flying surfaces, a flying
test bed is used to provide info on how any changes could effect the
aircraft's flying capabilities.

3 Any controls and electronics on the aircraft and changes to them,
by the manufacturer, are logged so any owner, or operator is aware
of any problems.

What do any of those points have to do with what I said?

FFS Dennis, that Alzheimer's of yours is getting worse.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:18:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:38:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.
It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.
That makes no difference. They could have been financially better off
had they not had the child.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.
I guess that depends on what services were cut.

That's a very interesting point. And one which most of the Left
basically lie about.

If you roughly divide people into 4 income groups

1/. The chronically unemployed
2/. The mostly employed on low wages with occasional unemployment
3/. The almost always employed at reasonably decent wages (the vast
majority).
4/ the rich, with cash and savings to spare (a VERY small minority)

Now, what you find is that about 99% of the tax comes from groups 2 and
3 who are in fact the bulk of the population. Probably about 90%, with
about 4% basically chronically unemployed and 1% who are really
comfortably off.

If we disregard the super rich, who can take care of themselves without
help, and for the moment disregard the chronically unemployed and poor,
the basic equation is that most of the tax and most - but not quite as
much of the services, comes from a very large group of people. Who pay,
one way or another, about 55% of their income TO the government, and get
back so called 'free services' in exchange.

However, the basic argument is, whether to employ a vast and ever
increasing number of bureaucrats to administer this HUGE public purse,
allegedly 'fairly', is in fact more, or less efficient, than essentially
letting people keep the money to start with, and spending it where they
will.

The main reason that an ever increasing number of bureaucrats seems to
be required is the fact that government make up more complex systems.
For example family tax credits. I'd scrap this and replace it with
additional tax allowances.


Indeed. we can agree on that. at least.


Now there are good arguments for some sort of central FUNDING and
REGULATION of essential services, like health and education, but really
I see no reason whatsoever why they should be government OWNED and RUN.
The only argument for state ownership is to manage a de facto monopoly,
like roads, railways, national grid etc etc. Hospitals and schools
simply do not fit into that description.

I don't really care who runs these services as long as they provide a
decent service. Publically run organisations have a history of
ineffeiciency but private companies are good at lining their own
pockets and still providing a poor service.

Not if there is strong competition. One mans profit is another man's
business opportunity.

I haven't seen much evidence that this has happened in say the
industries that have been privitized over the last couple of decades.
Strong competetion is not the normal situation. We get dominanace by
a single or a small group of companies and a semi-monopalistic
scenerio.

So the argument becomes less taxation for supply of services, than
taxation as a way to ensure that e.g. everyone has some form of health
insurance, and some form of 'fund' for education. And let them spend it
where they think its best spent. True choice. The Tory position as I
understand it is somewhat along those lines, that the services could be
delivered better and cheaper by not being government RUN, although state
FUNDED in some way.

Sounds fine but I would expect the overall cost of these services to
rise at they have to spend more resources in marketing costs etc..

Why? there is no need to market. beyond say a school letting people
know what it is and where it is.

Marketing is only really there to sell stuff people dont want or need to
them. My waitrose doesn't advertise. I know where it is. My dentists
doesn't advertise. I know where it is.

Schools already do some marketing to ensure that they get enough
pupils. Most private schools take out paid advertisements. And
waitrose do advertise. I've seen some.

The
is also a big danger that this would create a multi-tier society where
healthcare and education for the poorer would get worse.


Or a danger that healthcare for the more well off would get better?

The danger is that healthcare for the less well off would get worse.
Look at America for an example.

That's the real point for most 'socialists' - Why should hard earned
dosh entitle you to better anything.?

My point is, to create an incentive to have hard earned dosh.

There is a point (and for me we are well past it), where the entitlement
of the poor to massive ranges of services, for which they do not, have
not and never will contribute anything of value, is manifestly UNFAIR to
those that do the real work.

That's assuming that the poor do not do the "real" work. There are
always going to be lower paid jobs and people are needed to do them.
I'm not sure what you mean by the massive ranges of services you are
referring to that the poor don't deserve, but I firmly believe that
the poor are entitled to good healthcare and education to name but
two.

I go further, and would hypothesise that totally egalitarian societies
are innately self destructive. Human nature being what it is, and not
what Marxist idealists would like it to be.

And those who have a bit of disposable income, can e.g. purchase extra
tuition, or off insurance special medical care. After all, what is the
point of money at all if it wont buy you those sorts of deeply important
life choices?

That's alright for those fortunate enough to have the money to make
these choices, but touch luck on those who don't. If the rich can get
a better education and therefore better jobs then we are in danger of
creating a bigger divide in the country.

Which is probably a good thing. As long as social mobility is still
possible.

It isn't a good thing for society. It is possibly a good thing for
those fortunate to have loads of money. Social mobility is still
fairly low and I can't see how it could improve without a fair system.

Which is actually LESS easy these days, due to the fact that there is no
smooth graduation between e.g. public and private education or health
care. And no streaming of secondary schools.

What is less? There is streaming of secondary schools where I live. I
also know that there is a disproportionate number of children entering
the grammar school than children from state schools.



Going back to the chronically unemployed, at some point society has to
make a decision about what level of support they are going to
get.Personally I don't think its fair that people who lead productive
active economic lives should be dragged down by extra taxes to support
people who are not, in the style that is often as good as the lower end
of the working fraternity.

It entirely depends on the reason why people are chronically
unemployed. If it is because they are too lazy to work then they
don't deserve much support. If it is because they are ill or have a
disability the sitation is entirely different.

I totally agree, and that is the one means test I would retain. Are you
physically or mentally unable to work?

If so you belong in hospital, or are a special case.

What? No. I do work.

In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a
position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate
worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages
immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access
to social security in their own countries.

I agree with the first point. The "poverty trap" is a bad idea. I
think the minimum wage was introduced to remove this trap. I get the
impression it has not succeeded. We do need a level of immigration as
we are not having enough children in the UK to sustain our economy.
Freeloaders should not be made welcome though.


The minimum wage is simply there so that socialist can claim to have
'done something;' of course it only covers full time work. It is
actually counter productive, in that it totally removes, rather than
subsidises, a whole lump of low grade work. The jobs get down overseas.
Or not a all. Or on the black market with cash-in-hand.

Same goes for ALL the legiuslation for anti-=discrimination, and things
like maternity leave. No small business will emply a female whio is
likley to get pregnant, and demand maternity pay ad a job kept o[pen. Of
course we never admit iot, but te fact remains that the jobs go to teh
blokes, or to teh married woman with teenage kids, who does NOT have one
romantic work destroying relationship crisis every other week, get
married - taking time off for a honey moon, get pregnant, wander round
the office like a duck, throw up in the toilets every morning, produce
about half the output when she isn't at home with a migraine, have a
baby, expect to get paid, and then expect the job will still be there in
a years time.

This is an extremely prejudiced view IMHO. None of the women I know
are like this.

No, sorry, she isnt 'as well qualified' as the married mother of three,
with a decades experience of running a family, and the maturity and
experience that goes with it..

Even the chronically unemployed, or single mothers, are really actually
capable of SOME productive work. But the system as it is currently
constructed, makes this financially disadvantageous.

It's all this muddle headed socialist 'fairthink' that makes it all so
bloody expensive and inefficient.

If your referring to NuLabour I would not describe them a socialist.
They manage to pick the worst policies from both extremes of the
polical spretrum.


its not just them: its the whole eurosocialist movement in Brussels.

T Bliar was basically a weak vain man who reconciled the ends of the
political spectrum by lying equally to each, promising both things that
never materialised, and delivering half baked legislation at the drop of
a sound bite any time political lobbies shouted too loud. And borrowing
a shed load of money to pay everyone off as he did so. A cat beller of
the first order.

I agree with this.

Possibly the worst prime minister in my lifetime, except now we have
Brownian Motion, the ability to vaccillate wildly about a mean, under
the influence of hot air, and not actually achieve anything. No Bliar
was worse. Gordon has done almost nothing. Bliar did a lot, all of it bad.

There are quite a few PMs that have done a lot to seal the "worst PM"
of a lifetime award. I'm not sure who I'd place as the worst.

The overheads of trying desperately to make sure that everybody gets
what they need and everybody is taxed according to their presumed
ability to pay, destroy the very wealth that is supposed to be being
redistributed.

If the money gained from taxation is badly spent then yes. I don't
believe it has to be this way.


And one of the best ways is to get central goverenment out of the whole
thing.

There's a danger of replacing it with something worse. At least we
have a small amount of democracy left and can get rid of governments.

Its got no place to tell us how to run our lives. And dicate waht
'services' we get, whether we want them or not.

And places the final burden of defining what is fair, and equitable on a
central government whose activities have clearly shown that as arbiters
of social justice, they are no better than the common man in the street,
and possibly, due to the nature of the process that selects them for
election, often a very great deal worse.

Very true.

The Tory policy again is to accept that fact, and get them out of the
way of micro managing peoples lives: leave the cash by and large in the
hands of those who earn it, to spend where they will, and simply
underwrite the COSTS of public services of the minimum acceptable
standard whilst leaving the delivery of them to the organisations in
question.

I am very much against governments (or anyone else) micromanaging our
lives. However while there is very little economic mobility someone
does need to protect the average person from the people who hold all
the aces.

The answer is to change the rules of the game, so the people hold the aces.

Those aces are the purchasing power left in your pocket.

So some people will still hold (almost) all the Aces.

Remember edwina's curried eggs? she makes a true statement that Joe
public didn't realise was true and always had been true and joe public
nearly destroys the egg industry? Another good politician sacked for
telling the truth. Unlike Bliar.

take schooling.

lets say that you send your child to a school. Every day the school gets
them signed in on the register, it gets a flat rate from the government
provided it conforms to OFSTEDF standards Basic standards. Otherwise it
is free to teach what it likes, how it likes to who it likes.

If it suspends or expels a child, it loses income. That is its
commercial judegment. If the parents don't like its curriculum, or
discipline, or the colour of the mats teachers skin, they can take their
child to any other school that will have them.

If they want private tuition, the school might offer that at extra cost.
Or, indeed, any other subjects or activities that cannot be made
available at the basic state rate, BUT I hasten to add, if enough
parents pay for better playing fields or chemistry laboratories, that
makes them potentially available for all.

Instead of it being state free, or private at £3000 a term, there is now
a socially mobile middle ground.

would the most basic education be any WORSE? I don't see how it could be
frankly. Truly dreadful schools would go bust and get bought up, truly
bad children, who were not amenable to any discipline, would be thrown
out, benefiting the rest.

Basic education would get worse. It may not have much effect on the
schools that are already well below average. There are many factors
that affect the latter (which can already be closed). However the
"average" school would have less resources to use and would suffer as
a result.

This is bad news for NHS regional managers etc etc but good news for
everyone else. If we don't like THAT hospital,or school, go to the one
in the next county or borough. Just like you would a dentist.

I'd rather my local school/hospital/dentist etc is brought up to the
desired standard then messing about with this.

well tough **** baby. there are at least 20 dentists within similar
distance of me here. and its my choice which one I use, and if the
choice was not betwen ultra cheap very hurried and very poor dentistry,
and decent service, but a hundred quid every time I stepped through the
door, it would be a far better situation.

I'll bet there aren't 20 schools and hospitals though. And the
situation you talk about is already here. I'm sure you can find a
dentist that takes £100 off you every time you step through the door.


Personally, I would kill two other birds with one stone, and increase
taxation slightly, and pay it back instantly to very single citizen in
the country, and a basic living pension, slightly less than subsistence
level, to be paid to them whether they work or not. And eliminate
minimum wages and means tested benefits as a corollary. If you can make
an extra 50 quid a week, its yours to keep and no impact on your basic
pension. Of course this pension would not be available to immigrants.
Instantly your local work force is subsidised vis a vis immigrants. If
they can still make a living, good luck. If not, Dover is that way -

I'd be happy with such an arrangement.

The only means tests should be for people who have a medical condition.
And woe betide them if they get caught managing a couple of rounds of
gold whilst being officially bedridden.

Of course most of this means the EU membership has to go, but 'what good
has Brussels ever done us?'

:-)

I will resist making Monty Python quotes ;-)

;-)


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:18:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:38:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.
It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.
That makes no difference. They could have been financially better off
had they not had the child.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.
I guess that depends on what services were cut.

That's a very interesting point. And one which most of the Left
basically lie about.

If you roughly divide people into 4 income groups

1/. The chronically unemployed
2/. The mostly employed on low wages with occasional unemployment
3/. The almost always employed at reasonably decent wages (the vast
majority).
4/ the rich, with cash and savings to spare (a VERY small minority)

Now, what you find is that about 99% of the tax comes from groups 2 and
3 who are in fact the bulk of the population. Probably about 90%, with
about 4% basically chronically unemployed and 1% who are really
comfortably off.

If we disregard the super rich, who can take care of themselves without
help, and for the moment disregard the chronically unemployed and poor,
the basic equation is that most of the tax and most - but not quite as
much of the services, comes from a very large group of people. Who pay,
one way or another, about 55% of their income TO the government, and get
back so called 'free services' in exchange.

However, the basic argument is, whether to employ a vast and ever
increasing number of bureaucrats to administer this HUGE public purse,
allegedly 'fairly', is in fact more, or less efficient, than essentially
letting people keep the money to start with, and spending it where they
will.
The main reason that an ever increasing number of bureaucrats seems to
be required is the fact that government make up more complex systems.
For example family tax credits. I'd scrap this and replace it with
additional tax allowances.

Indeed. we can agree on that. at least.


Now there are good arguments for some sort of central FUNDING and
REGULATION of essential services, like health and education, but really
I see no reason whatsoever why they should be government OWNED and RUN.
The only argument for state ownership is to manage a de facto monopoly,
like roads, railways, national grid etc etc. Hospitals and schools
simply do not fit into that description.
I don't really care who runs these services as long as they provide a
decent service. Publically run organisations have a history of
ineffeiciency but private companies are good at lining their own
pockets and still providing a poor service.

Not if there is strong competition. One mans profit is another man's
business opportunity.

I haven't seen much evidence that this has happened in say the
industries that have been privitized over the last couple of decades.
Strong competetion is not the normal situation. We get dominanace by
a single or a small group of companies and a semi-monopalistic
scenerio.


If the barrier to entry in terms of capital spend is not too high, then
competition is a natural thing. Think scaffold supplires. all over the
palce.



If it is high, like a power station, then yes, you do tend to get a
limited number of suppliers.

A school is a typical example of an atomic unit that has no need to be
state run.

So is a medical practice.

Hospitals ae less easy to chop around, but there should be no reason not
to spin off large parts of them to private use.

So the argument becomes less taxation for supply of services, than
taxation as a way to ensure that e.g. everyone has some form of health
insurance, and some form of 'fund' for education. And let them spend it
where they think its best spent. True choice. The Tory position as I
understand it is somewhat along those lines, that the services could be
delivered better and cheaper by not being government RUN, although state
FUNDED in some way.
Sounds fine but I would expect the overall cost of these services to
rise at they have to spend more resources in marketing costs etc..
Why? there is no need to market. beyond say a school letting people
know what it is and where it is.

Marketing is only really there to sell stuff people dont want or need to
them. My waitrose doesn't advertise. I know where it is. My dentists
doesn't advertise. I know where it is.

Schools already do some marketing to ensure that they get enough
pupils. Most private schools take out paid advertisements. And
waitrose do advertise. I've seen some.


Waitrose advertise centrally, I agree. But marketing for private schools
is more about the glossy you pick up when you tote your snivelling brat
along to see if its possible they could knock some sense into his
demented brain..

Not a huge part of the budget.


The
is also a big danger that this would create a multi-tier society where
healthcare and education for the poorer would get worse.

Or a danger that healthcare for the more well off would get better?

The danger is that healthcare for the less well off would get worse.
Look at America for an example.


I don't put that forward as a model for anything.
I've recieved good medical acre overseas from private insurance. No
reason for it to be any worse if publicly insured.



That's the real point for most 'socialists' - Why should hard earned
dosh entitle you to better anything.?

My point is, to create an incentive to have hard earned dosh.

There is a point (and for me we are well past it), where the entitlement
of the poor to massive ranges of services, for which they do not, have
not and never will contribute anything of value, is manifestly UNFAIR to
those that do the real work.

That's assuming that the poor do not do the "real" work. There are
always going to be lower paid jobs and people are needed to do them.
I'm not sure what you mean by the massive ranges of services you are
referring to that the poor don't deserve, but I firmly believe that
the poor are entitled to good healthcare and education to name but
two.

These days 'good' is taken to mean the 'best available' and since that
is impossibly expensive compared with what public means can afford, the
tendency is to remove the private element or price it so high that
indeed, the state is the best available, Because it is the ONLY available.

I dont believe anybody is actually entitled to anything. If the country
can afford it, and the public will is to have it, then it may be
provided, but the right of everybody to equal treatment is fast heading
into the realm of everyone gets crap, and nothing else is allowed. Bit
like communist Russia.

It has been estimated that to provide the best possible healthcare
available to everyone in the country would take 3 x the GDP of the nation.

So its pie in the sky.

The question then is, should we therefore prevent ANYONE from having it?





I go further, and would hypothesise that totally egalitarian societies
are innately self destructive. Human nature being what it is, and not
what Marxist idealists would like it to be.

And those who have a bit of disposable income, can e.g. purchase extra
tuition, or off insurance special medical care. After all, what is the
point of money at all if it wont buy you those sorts of deeply important
life choices?
That's alright for those fortunate enough to have the money to make
these choices, but touch luck on those who don't. If the rich can get
a better education and therefore better jobs then we are in danger of
creating a bigger divide in the country.
Which is probably a good thing. As long as social mobility is still
possible.

It isn't a good thing for society. It is possibly a good thing for
those fortunate to have loads of money. Social mobility is still
fairly low and I can't see how it could improve without a fair system.


That's your problem then. Social mobility was higher when I was a kid
than it is now. 11+ grammar school, Oxbridge..plenty of working class
and ordinary low income kids made it. I was one. These days its
virtually impossible to get to Oxbridge from a state school. The
standards are just too low. And whereas I got a scholarship to a fee
paying school, that is frowned on these days.

Look at the latest row over the drugs advisory board. That's what this
government thinks of educated intelligent people. Shades of Mao's
purging of the intellectuals.


Which is actually LESS easy these days, due to the fact that there is no
smooth graduation between e.g. public and private education or health
care. And no streaming of secondary schools.

What is less? There is streaming of secondary schools where I live. I
also know that there is a disproportionate number of children entering
the grammar school than children from state schools.


I simply cant parse that ..

care to rephrase?


Going back to the chronically unemployed, at some point society has to
make a decision about what level of support they are going to
get.Personally I don't think its fair that people who lead productive
active economic lives should be dragged down by extra taxes to support
people who are not, in the style that is often as good as the lower end
of the working fraternity.
It entirely depends on the reason why people are chronically
unemployed. If it is because they are too lazy to work then they
don't deserve much support. If it is because they are ill or have a
disability the sitation is entirely different.

I totally agree, and that is the one means test I would retain. Are you
physically or mentally unable to work?

If so you belong in hospital, or are a special case.

What? No. I do work.

In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a
position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate
worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages
immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access
to social security in their own countries.
I agree with the first point. The "poverty trap" is a bad idea. I
think the minimum wage was introduced to remove this trap. I get the
impression it has not succeeded. We do need a level of immigration as
we are not having enough children in the UK to sustain our economy.
Freeloaders should not be made welcome though.

The minimum wage is simply there so that socialist can claim to have
'done something;' of course it only covers full time work. It is
actually counter productive, in that it totally removes, rather than
subsidises, a whole lump of low grade work. The jobs get down overseas.
Or not a all. Or on the black market with cash-in-hand.

Same goes for ALL the legiuslation for anti-=discrimination, and things
like maternity leave. No small business will emply a female whio is
likley to get pregnant, and demand maternity pay ad a job kept o[pen. Of
course we never admit iot, but te fact remains that the jobs go to teh
blokes, or to teh married woman with teenage kids, who does NOT have one
romantic work destroying relationship crisis every other week, get
married - taking time off for a honey moon, get pregnant, wander round
the office like a duck, throw up in the toilets every morning, produce
about half the output when she isn't at home with a migraine, have a
baby, expect to get paid, and then expect the job will still be there in
a years time.

This is an extremely prejudiced view IMHO. None of the women I know
are like this.


fair enough. Its an extreme case, but that one case makes more hassle
and work than the 10 that don't. Its an ACTUAL case from my experience
as an employer.

I could cite you many more. I used to strenuouosly argue the case every
time the 'chaps'' wanted attractive young secretaries, and told them to
get middle aged women instead. Far better output, far less hassle.


The point is, why take on someone who MAY be a problem when you can take
on someone who definitely won't be? It all adds up into the decision
making process.

If the state wants to subsidise pregnancy and motherhood, then let the
state bloody well do it. Not pass the cost on to employers, that's all.




No, sorry, she isnt 'as well qualified' as the married mother of three,
with a decades experience of running a family, and the maturity and
experience that goes with it..

Even the chronically unemployed, or single mothers, are really actually
capable of SOME productive work. But the system as it is currently
constructed, makes this financially disadvantageous.

It's all this muddle headed socialist 'fairthink' that makes it all so
bloody expensive and inefficient.
If your referring to NuLabour I would not describe them a socialist.
They manage to pick the worst policies from both extremes of the
polical spretrum.

its not just them: its the whole eurosocialist movement in Brussels.

T Bliar was basically a weak vain man who reconciled the ends of the
political spectrum by lying equally to each, promising both things that
never materialised, and delivering half baked legislation at the drop of
a sound bite any time political lobbies shouted too loud. And borrowing
a shed load of money to pay everyone off as he did so. A cat beller of
the first order.

I agree with this.

Possibly the worst prime minister in my lifetime, except now we have
Brownian Motion, the ability to vaccillate wildly about a mean, under
the influence of hot air, and not actually achieve anything. No Bliar
was worse. Gordon has done almost nothing. Bliar did a lot, all of it bad.

There are quite a few PMs that have done a lot to seal the "worst PM"
of a lifetime award. I'm not sure who I'd place as the worst.


Ive never quite met such a blatant combination of incompetence, lack of
leadership, activism, and downright cupidity as Bliar. G Brown is your
more normal sort. Jusst basically incompetent, out of touch, and
clinging to ideology as a substitute for thinking.


The overheads of trying desperately to make sure that everybody gets
what they need and everybody is taxed according to their presumed
ability to pay, destroy the very wealth that is supposed to be being
redistributed.
If the money gained from taxation is badly spent then yes. I don't
believe it has to be this way.

And one of the best ways is to get central goverenment out of the whole
thing.

There's a danger of replacing it with something worse. At least we
have a small amount of democracy left and can get rid of governments.


Look if you don't like B&Q, go to wickes, B & Q goes bust. That's REAL
democracy. Leaving people to spend where they will s the best form of
democracy.

Taking all their money and having a bureaucracy decide who gets what
back, is Stalinist., They had elections too. For what difference it made
to anything.



Its got no place to tell us how to run our lives. And dicate waht
'services' we get, whether we want them or not.

And places the final burden of defining what is fair, and equitable on a
central government whose activities have clearly shown that as arbiters
of social justice, they are no better than the common man in the street,
and possibly, due to the nature of the process that selects them for
election, often a very great deal worse.
Very true.

The Tory policy again is to accept that fact, and get them out of the
way of micro managing peoples lives: leave the cash by and large in the
hands of those who earn it, to spend where they will, and simply
underwrite the COSTS of public services of the minimum acceptable
standard whilst leaving the delivery of them to the organisations in
question.
I am very much against governments (or anyone else) micromanaging our
lives. However while there is very little economic mobility someone
does need to protect the average person from the people who hold all
the aces.
The answer is to change the rules of the game, so the people hold the aces.

Those aces are the purchasing power left in your pocket.

So some people will still hold (almost) all the Aces.

No, everybody holds some aces.

The pound in your pocket dictates the success or failure of the fish and
chip shop. The million in your pocket dictates the success of the luxury
yacht business. Who really cares if the rich spend their money on toys,
especially if toys carry big taxes.. But Berowns Britain would make it
illegal to but luxury yachts, and give you a nationalised fish and chip
shop, that could only be changed by changing the central
government..that's how stupid its got. Local elected authorities are
merely implementers of central policy: They have virtually no freedom of
action, so the elections are meaningless. Its even worse. Now central
government is merely the implementer of Brussels legislation...




Remember edwina's curried eggs? she makes a true statement that Joe
public didn't realise was true and always had been true and joe public
nearly destroys the egg industry? Another good politician sacked for
telling the truth. Unlike Bliar.

take schooling.

lets say that you send your child to a school. Every day the school gets
them signed in on the register, it gets a flat rate from the government
provided it conforms to OFSTEDF standards Basic standards. Otherwise it
is free to teach what it likes, how it likes to who it likes.

If it suspends or expels a child, it loses income. That is its
commercial judegment. If the parents don't like its curriculum, or
discipline, or the colour of the mats teachers skin, they can take their
child to any other school that will have them.

If they want private tuition, the school might offer that at extra cost.
Or, indeed, any other subjects or activities that cannot be made
available at the basic state rate, BUT I hasten to add, if enough
parents pay for better playing fields or chemistry laboratories, that
makes them potentially available for all.

Instead of it being state free, or private at £3000 a term, there is now
a socially mobile middle ground.

would the most basic education be any WORSE? I don't see how it could be
frankly. Truly dreadful schools would go bust and get bought up, truly
bad children, who were not amenable to any discipline, would be thrown
out, benefiting the rest.

Basic education would get worse. It may not have much effect on the
schools that are already well below average. There are many factors
that affect the latter (which can already be closed). However the
"average" school would have less resources to use and would suffer as
a result.

This is bad news for NHS regional managers etc etc but good news for
everyone else. If we don't like THAT hospital,or school, go to the one
in the next county or borough. Just like you would a dentist.
I'd rather my local school/hospital/dentist etc is brought up to the
desired standard then messing about with this.
well tough **** baby. there are at least 20 dentists within similar
distance of me here. and its my choice which one I use, and if the
choice was not betwen ultra cheap very hurried and very poor dentistry,
and decent service, but a hundred quid every time I stepped through the
door, it would be a far better situation.

I'll bet there aren't 20 schools and hospitals though.

Actually there are at least 20 schools and about 5 hospitals.


And the
situation you talk about is already here. I'm sure you can find a
dentist that takes £100 off you every time you step through the door.


Indeed. The point is I can afford that. So I have that choice.

Personally, I would kill two other birds with one stone, and increase
taxation slightly, and pay it back instantly to very single citizen in
the country, and a basic living pension, slightly less than subsistence
level, to be paid to them whether they work or not. And eliminate
minimum wages and means tested benefits as a corollary. If you can make
an extra 50 quid a week, its yours to keep and no impact on your basic
pension. Of course this pension would not be available to immigrants.
Instantly your local work force is subsidised vis a vis immigrants. If
they can still make a living, good luck. If not, Dover is that way -
I'd be happy with such an arrangement.

The only means tests should be for people who have a medical condition.
And woe betide them if they get caught managing a couple of rounds of
gold whilst being officially bedridden.

Of course most of this means the EU membership has to go, but 'what good
has Brussels ever done us?'

:-)
I will resist making Monty Python quotes ;-)
;-)