On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:24:22 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Sausage King" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
says...
Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter
arguement.

Brainwashed illogical drivel, is drivel and worth of taking stock of.
Just
like what you come out with.

There is no country in the world where extreme left has worked

I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.

There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.


Exactly. Extreme anything fails because it is forcing situations
artificially.





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:36:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:36:14 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Okay, then. Try t-h-e-f-t. Understand that? Taking something that is
not rightfully yours. With six slices in a pie, the greedy person
always wants TWO slices, even if it means that someone gets NO slice.
It's all the same to the greedy person. Two slices seem totally fair.
Of course, most of us know different, as did our mothers if we had had
the benefit of a good and decent upbringing.

The trouble with this notion is that it is thinking only in a
simplistic way.

The more sensible approach would be to make the pie larger.

If the pie is not made larger then the greedy ******* always take two slices
and still doesn't care if someone gets nothing.

So the focus should be on making the pie larger, not scrapping over
who gets the big bit.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:36:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:36:14 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Okay, then. Try t-h-e-f-t. Understand that? Taking something that is
not rightfully yours. With six slices in a pie, the greedy person
always wants TWO slices, even if it means that someone gets NO slice.
It's all the same to the greedy person. Two slices seem totally fair.
Of course, most of us know different, as did our mothers if we had had
the benefit of a good and decent upbringing.

The trouble with this notion is that it is thinking only in a
simplistic way.

The more sensible approach would be to make the pie larger.

If the pie is not made larger then the greedy ******* always take two
slices
and still doesn't care if someone gets nothing.

So the focus should be on making the pie larger, not scrapping over
who gets the big bit.

If it can't be made larger the greedy ******* has to be curtailed.

In article ,
says...
I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.

Cuba has some of the highest crime rates ever recorded. It has been a
failure there too.

There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.

But I'm not proposing the extreme right only some more private
intervention.

Next you'll be suggesting that it should be from each according to his
ability to each according to his need?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

IMM wrote in message ...


snip ill informed drivel.
Capitol

IMM wrote in message ...

snip drivel
Capitol

IMM wrote in message ...

If it can't be made larger the greedy ******* has to be curtailed.


Success! Defeatism and envy in one sentence!

Capitol

Huge wrote in message ...
Err, no it isn't.

I believe it is. The shares may be still quoted in Sterling, but ownership
is offshore.

Happy to be wrong if you can make the case.
Regards
Capitol

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it
would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.

Cuba has some of the highest crime rates ever recorded. It has been a
failure there too.

Havana is a very safe city. Any crime is due to the needless economic
sanctions by the USA.

There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.

But I'm not proposing the extreme right only some more private
intervention.

Next you'll be suggesting that it should be from each according to his
ability to each according to his need?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article , Mike Mitchell
writes
elected. It looks like the public services are going to be pared back
somewhat.
No, he said they wanted to cut out all the unnecessary (final pensioned)
bums behind desks - jag+=2 has employed 4,000 alone in the 'opdm' since
1997.


having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short.

Because Noo Labour have swamped the NHS with 'managers' and bureaucracy.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

I thought that is what Mr Letwin said they would do (spend more).
How many of you have heard of Mr Grainger ?. He is the overpaid prat
that Phoney has employed (£250K per year) to spend about 5 *billion* of
our taxes on a totally unnecessary national computerisation scheme for
the NHS. Sod the Victorian buildings - lets get some bits and bytes in
there. The whole charade has been surrounded by almost military secrecy
- virtually no independent reviews or critical analysis. Mr Grainger has
been reported as saying that all existing HNHS computer systems are
'crap' (some are, many aren't - like the London Hospitals excellent
system running on venerable ?Old VAX's and systel) yet he hasn't
bothered to even do a proper audit of what is being done.
--
Andrew

In article , Mike Mitchell
writes

That is a thoroughly obnoxious suggestion as it is tantamount to
supporting theft.

What - Phoney guilty of theft, surely not.

PS Many nurses have been poached from Africa - and quite a few of them
are HIV positive, so they cannot be allowed near patients ! - and the
human rights act means they cannot be sent home. Now they are a burden
on our NHS, not the country where they came from. Brilliant.
--
Andrew

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:43:07 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:36:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:36:14 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Okay, then. Try t-h-e-f-t. Understand that? Taking something that is
not rightfully yours. With six slices in a pie, the greedy person
always wants TWO slices, even if it means that someone gets NO slice.
It's all the same to the greedy person. Two slices seem totally fair.
Of course, most of us know different, as did our mothers if we had had
the benefit of a good and decent upbringing.

The trouble with this notion is that it is thinking only in a
simplistic way.

The more sensible approach would be to make the pie larger.

If the pie is not made larger then the greedy ******* always take two
slices
and still doesn't care if someone gets nothing.

So the focus should be on making the pie larger, not scrapping over
who gets the big bit.

If it can't be made larger the greedy ******* has to be curtailed.

The conflict shouldn't arise in the first place because that is a
complete waste of everybody's time and effort, when that effort could
be more productively directed.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Sausage
King writes
In article ,
says...
It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.
Your ridiculous notion of just going private and then all will be solved is
very silly. All it will mean is that rich people benefit over the poor.
The midwives will be tempted over to the private sector at the expensive of
the real sector.

This is a school boy error.

You do not train Midwives overnight but overnight you do persuade them
back into the profession by offering market levels of remuneration.

The aren't leaving because of the money though !.
PS Like the population as a whole, the nursing profession is well into
its 50's and when they start retiring and collecting their fully
inflation proof pensions (which few private employers can afford) over
the next 5 years, who is going to replace them ?. The nursing profession
shot itself in the foot by going for graduate entry only. Now thousands
of very willing people find they can only work as nursing auxiliaries
with no chance of promotion.
--
Andrew

In article , IMM
writes

There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.


Not true, Chile has an excellent private pension systems that *everyone*
has to participate in. 'Experts' from around the world have been there
to take a look at how it should be done.
Their troublesome lefties were sorted out as well :-)
--
Andrew

In article , Sausage
King writes
In article ,
says...
I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.

Cuba has some of the highest crime rates ever recorded. It has been a
failure there too.

And they all drive ladas - a real crime, and a sure sign of a failed
economy.


--
Andrew

In article , IMM
writes

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
They said they are going to save billions and services the same. This is
amazing! they must have invented a new way of adding up.


No, just gone back to the old system of 1nurse+1patient=2, unlike the
present Socialist system of 1nurse+3managers+ 57ticked boxes=2(maybes)

It was Thatcher who introduced two tiers of management into the NHS.


Replacing the three that were there before - pay attention at the back.
--
Andrew

In article , Tony Bryer
writes
In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

But Labour are. The problem is in ensuring that the money goes into
"front line services" rather than non or inessential jobs. I suspect
that Gordon Brown is as outraged as the Daily Mail by some of the
jobs that appear in the Guardian public sector ads. When I worked for
a LA BCO jobs would be kept empty for months at a time whilst
Personnel and Management Services relentlessly grew.

Actually the biggest increase in spending on the NHS in *real* terms
was during John Majors 5 years. Oh, and the first thing Phoney did was
scrap Ken Clarks initiatives - now 6 years later they have suddenly
'discovered' the same ideas and are calling them theirs.
--
Andrew

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17:50 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

So it's fair and reasonable for the workers of Britain to want to improve
their lot, by striking or whatever, and but unfair for a foreigner to do the
same by moving to somewhere they can get better pay and conditions?

Apples and oranges. While our low-paid workers go on strike, if need
be, to obtain a higher wage, we are exploiting the third world to keep
wages down. By keeping wage slow, we lose staff in key positions, who
do not find working for a pittance very attractive. Thus the third
world loses thrice. They lose their staff, their workers are paid low
wages when they arrive in Britain, and the money that it cost to train
those workers in their home country is wasted. That country's tax
payers are thus out of pocket because we in Britain have (a) not paid
high enough wages to attract more of the indigenous population into,
say, nursing or midwifery, and (b) take advantage of third world
workers who, you're right, are only too keen to want to improve their
position. It's not the indivudual workers either at home or abroad you
need to apportion blame to, it's the Government, or rather, successive
governments.

I suggest you take a long hard look at the rest of your series of ridiculous
posts too, hypocrite.

Okay, if it floats your boat!

MM

In article , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

But the banks could easily lose all their customers - it's a free
choice. The housing market is now effectively being driven by the buy-
to-let market. Great, everyone goes to Bristol & West BS and is allowed
to borrow enough to buy 5 houses for their portfolio - what happens to
house prices ?.
--
Andrew

In article , Huge
writes
Mike Mitchell writes:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:44:25 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

[31 lines snipped]

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

The self-employed?

It [profit] is the first objective of any business.

How come Mr Murdoch has never made a 'profit' since Sky TV started ?.
--
Andrew

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:16:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:07:00 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:05:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:52:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.

They can be recruited from overseas just as they are to an extent now.

That is a thoroughly obnoxious suggestion as it is tantamount to
supporting theft.

What a silly idea.

Do you believe, then, that it is morally justified to take advantage
of tax payers in the third world and poach their workers to fulfil our
needs when we have been unable or unwilling (through greed, lack of
planning, lack of investment for the future, and other causes) to
entice enough of our own workforce into such jobs? How come Chinese
migrants can come here all the way from China, earn 11 pence an hour,
get drowned, the local MP warned the Government beforehand, yet all in
authority turn a blind eye and try to pass the buck on to gang
masters?

The third world, mainly, will have sacrificed a good
deal in order to train nurses presumably for their own needs, and
Britain, that once great colonial paragon, then poaches them!

Quite a bit of training happens in the first and new worlds anyway,
and why should people be prevented from going to work in a different
country?

I am not blaming the people, but this Government. And the previous
Tory Government. And probably the Labour one before Thatcher came to
power. These problems go back decades.

This is
fair? No, it bloody well is not! Anyone who suggests this course of
action needs a lesson in removing the beam from his own eye first.

Strange and inapplicable analogy.

Sorry, what I meant was we should fix our own problems instead of
relying on cheap labour from countries that can ill afford to let
their workers leave en masse. It's one thing for individual workers of
their own volition and in their own time and according to personal
circumstances to make a decision to live and work in a foreign
country. It is quite another for the Government out of desperation to
actively recruit workers abroad in their thousands and persuade them
to come to Britain. This is a panic measure, not joined-up Government.
There was a documentary some while ago about two Australian teachers,
a man and a woman, who had been thus persuaded to work in Britain, but
they both left after a short time because they found that British
schoolchildren so lacked discipline it was impossible to teach them.
This is all part of the attitude we have.


The question is why don't people here want to train for this
profession? Working conditions perhaps?

Them, and low wages.

In a fundamentally broken public system.


But also a lack of any will to achieve in the way
we in Britain stumble from one year to the next, from one decade to
the next.

You might, but I certainly don't.

Isolated case. I'm talking about the whole country here! Look how
desperate we were to have won the rugby. Anything we do achieve is
hyped to the heavens because we know there won't be anything else
along to cheer about any time soon. No wonder the British went crazy
over Diana when she died. The public *need* to focus on something that
binds them as a nation, they *want* Britain to succeed. So why don't
we? Who stole the blueprints?

It's a question of one's
attitude. As soon as collectivist descriptions and notions are
spplied to this type of issue the outcome will be poor, simply because
people then believe that it is the responsibility of the group or
somebody other than them to improve their lot. It isn't.

Well, someone has the responsibility! Or is it just some weird
continental magic which makes other countries work better, their
populations more cohesive, their prisons emptier, their productivity
higher? Maybe it's because we are without any effective leadership and
only nominally have it in the monarchy that we are becoming so
totally directionless and apathetic.

We have been stumbling along, almost since the end of World
War II. I think we are a nation which does not like thinking. We are
too content to wallow in an inferior quality of life and make it seem
better by buying lots of booze and drugs.

This is a very defeatist view of life and one which doesn't have to
be. Fundamentally, people are happier with less involvement from the
state in their affairs, yet the state seeks to increase its influence.

The state influence you refer to is prescriptive. I want the Liberal
Democrats in government because they are less prescriptive and more
presumptive. But I also want to live in a Britain which doesn't have
to continually hand out anti-social behaviour orders, or send
ministers abroad to preempt soccer hooliganism, or spend a fortune
each and every Friday night policing the streets as the drunken youths
and their girls stumble homewards. A decent society, that's all, as is
evident in many other countries - and, indeed, in some isolated parts
of Britain. You probably think I am exaggerating, don't you?


We probably don't want to
become midwives, because, well, babies are messy little things, aren't
they? All covered in blood and gore when they pop out! Who wants to do
something useful when it's far easier to work in a call centre or
stack tins of beans in Tesco's? It's our attitude to life that is the
problem. We are without ambition.

Some people are, and as long as the state bails them out will continue
to be.

Other countries are far more generous to their citizens and yet there
is a buzz in the air in those countries. Why is that?


And all the while we have the
"insurance policy" of the third world to call upon to do the jobs
don't want to do, we'll be okay, won't we, won't we...?

That isn't really the point, it is one of attitude and economics.

Well, we can't spend our way out of the problems, else we'd be paying
so much tax, there'd be no take-home pay left. We need to change our
attitude.

MM

Huge wrote in message ...
Andrew writes:
How come Mr Murdoch has never made a 'profit' since Sky TV started ?.

Because he's bonkers and his shareholders spineless?


NO. Because the objective has been to grow the capital worth of the company.
The company is worth many times its original capitalisation.ie the shares
are worth many times what the shareholders invested. Being unprofitable
when the capital worth is increasing, is not losing money, purely a a step
in growth, whilst increasing employment and gaining market share. Many
internet companies are similarly superficially unprofitable on their company
accounts, but worth a lot of money. If you take the risks, sometimes you get
the rewards. It's called capitalism!

Regards
Capitol

Regards
Capitol

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:01:06 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:44:25 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:05:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

Which is wrong.

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

The self-employed? How come thousands of small businesses can provide
a useful service, both to their customers and themselves, with no
shareholders involved?

MM

They are the shareholder. They will try to maximise their own return.

Good for them! They are doing the work. They earn the rewards.
Shareholders do neither.

MM

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:18:57 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

The proprietor or perhaps a small group of individuals are the
shareholder. The same principles apply

Sure they do!

MM

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:22:51 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Oh dear. This kind of idealism disappeared long before the decline
of the former USSR. The few countries that still attempt to ply
this nonsense have corrupt regimes and the population live in abject
poverty. Homo Sapiens and planet Earth have largely moved on from
the failed experiment of communism.

Please explain your fancy excuses to the workers who go on strike
because they are being ripped off by greedy employers. I'm sure
they'll be all ears. Not!

MM

On 17 Feb 2004 18:08:45 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Mike Mitchell writes:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:57:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

[21 lines snipped]

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

What is the justification for this? Do shareholders plant wheat or
rice? Do shareholders weld or build? No, they prefer to exploit the
workers, and then pay them a pittance, and then have the gall to
grumble when the workers revolt.

Can I suggest that you go an live in a socialist paradise somewhere? Cuba
or North Korea, perhaps?

Of course you can! It's a free country. You don't have to ask for
permission!


Oh, I forgot, they can't feed their citizens or provide 24/7 electricity.

You didn't forget! Otherwise how were you able to write that sentence?

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...


Well, we can't spend our way out of the problems, else we'd be paying
so much tax, there'd be no take-home pay left. We need to change our
attitude.


But that's what the Libdems want to do!! Also they want to join the
worthless Euro and be ruled by Brussels!

What a choice!

I don't disagree with your desire to have a responsible, hard working well
paid population, but the only economy I've seen which rewards effort and
efficiency and controls taxes is the US. No, it's not perfect, but apart
from lacking universal healthcare, it's probably the best there is.

Regards
Capitol

Mike Mitchell wrote in message

Shareholders do neither.


Shareholder risk their money every time that they buy shares. Some you lose,
some you win, as I know too well. They provide the initial cash that pays
the workers etc. If you want a well capitalised company to grow, then you
need shareholders prepared to take the risk of losing their money. Perhaps
like IMM, you think that Cuba is the the model economy?

Regards
Capitol

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:02:34 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

Like a friend of mine (who owns a successful business) once said in response
to the kind of anti-businessman ranting we've keep seeing he

"When was the last time a poor person gave anyone a job?"

I suppose you think "businessmen" are our saviours, our gods, our
reason for living. Well, I do not. "Businessmen" have got out of hand
in a very big way and they need to be reined in. The public do not
realise what an Achilles' Heel consumers represent in terms of buying
power. If a company were boycotted for just a week, things would start
to look shaky. For a month, and it would be applying for Chapter 11.
This *is* actually starting to happen, but only in a fledgling manner
so far, with more and more people shopping on the internet, fed up
with being ripped off. Also, in Britain at least, consumers are
waiting until *after* Christmas to take advantage of the sales. They
are becoming wise to the wily ways of the "businessmen". And when the
company goes out of business because consumers became fed up with its
greed, its rip offs, its bad service, and its don't care attitude, the
company's workers will have something to say about it, too, because
they will be without a job. The free market rules, okay?

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...

Please explain your fancy excuses to the workers who go on strike
because they are being ripped off by greedy employers. I'm sure
they'll be all ears. Not!


I am totally in favour of workers withdrawing their labour. I've done it
myself. However, the choice to become unemployed by striking is down to the
individual. If you don't like the terms, decide if you are prepared to take
the hard decisions. Going on strike is normally a function of a situation
where the employer is not adequately profitable. It is rarely productive.
Look at coal, steel and cars if you want to see the results. Employers are
not normally primarily motivated by greed, but by the necessity to control
costs against their competitors and keep the workforce employed. When a
business collapses because it is unprofitable, the shareholders also lose
out as well as the workers. We live in a capitalist world, because this has
proved to be the best way of advancing the living standards of most of the
people.

I well recall a MD friend saying to me, that he dreaded going into work on
Monday mornings, because he knew the figures would show that he had to make
even more workers redundant. (1989)

Employees who do not want to work are probably infinitely more common than
employers who want to rip off their employees.

Regards
Capitol

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:12:00 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:16:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:07:00 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:05:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:52:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.

They can be recruited from overseas just as they are to an extent now.

That is a thoroughly obnoxious suggestion as it is tantamount to
supporting theft.

What a silly idea.

Do you believe, then, that it is morally justified to take advantage
of tax payers in the third world and poach their workers to fulfil our
needs when we have been unable or unwilling (through greed, lack of
planning, lack of investment for the future, and other causes) to
entice enough of our own workforce into such jobs? How come Chinese
migrants can come here all the way from China, earn 11 pence an hour,
get drowned, the local MP warned the Government beforehand, yet all in
authority turn a blind eye and try to pass the buck on to gang
masters?

That's an extrapolated comparison which has little to do with the
original example. Again it depends on perspective. There are, and
always have been sweat shops or their equivalent. The issue is over
where the line lies.
For example, the hours and conditions for a junior hospital doctor
aren't exactly great either, but the NHS views them as legitimate.




The third world, mainly, will have sacrificed a good
deal in order to train nurses presumably for their own needs, and
Britain, that once great colonial paragon, then poaches them!

Quite a bit of training happens in the first and new worlds anyway,
and why should people be prevented from going to work in a different
country?

I am not blaming the people, but this Government. And the previous
Tory Government. And probably the Labour one before Thatcher came to
power. These problems go back decades.


I don't view it as a problem.


This is
fair? No, it bloody well is not! Anyone who suggests this course of
action needs a lesson in removing the beam from his own eye first.

Strange and inapplicable analogy.

Sorry, what I meant was we should fix our own problems instead of
relying on cheap labour from countries that can ill afford to let
their workers leave en masse.
It's one thing for individual workers of
their own volition and in their own time and according to personal
circumstances to make a decision to live and work in a foreign
country. It is quite another for the Government out of desperation to
actively recruit workers abroad in their thousands and persuade them
to come to Britain.

It's still ultimately their choice. They are not being press ganged
and herded onto slave ships.


This is a panic measure, not joined-up Government.
There was a documentary some while ago about two Australian teachers,
a man and a woman, who had been thus persuaded to work in Britain, but
they both left after a short time because they found that British
schoolchildren so lacked discipline it was impossible to teach them.

That can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of creating large,
faceless one size fits all schools.


This is all part of the attitude we have.


The question is why don't people here want to train for this
profession? Working conditions perhaps?

Them, and low wages.

In a fundamentally broken public system.


But also a lack of any will to achieve in the way
we in Britain stumble from one year to the next, from one decade to
the next.

You might, but I certainly don't.

Isolated case. I'm talking about the whole country here! Look how
desperate we were to have won the rugby. Anything we do achieve is
hyped to the heavens because we know there won't be anything else
along to cheer about any time soon.

Media hype. You may need it in order to feel good about yourself. I
don't and tend to avoid it.

No wonder the British went crazy
over Diana when she died.

Media hysteria.

The public *need* to focus on something that
binds them as a nation, they *want* Britain to succeed. So why don't
we? Who stole the blueprints?

I feel pretty successful, don't you?



It's a question of one's
attitude. As soon as collectivist descriptions and notions are
spplied to this type of issue the outcome will be poor, simply because
people then believe that it is the responsibility of the group or
somebody other than them to improve their lot. It isn't.

Well, someone has the responsibility! Or is it just some weird
continental magic which makes other countries work better,

I'm not sure that they do

their
populations more cohesive,

that's desirable?

their prisons emptier, their productivity
higher?

is it?


Maybe it's because we are without any effective leadership and
only nominally have it in the monarchy that we are becoming so
totally directionless and apathetic.

I think you are describing a personal angst that comes from wanting a
collectivist society and system of government that does things for you
and are not finding it.

Personally I don't want it, so I don't have that angst.



We have been stumbling along, almost since the end of World
War II. I think we are a nation which does not like thinking. We are
too content to wallow in an inferior quality of life and make it seem
better by buying lots of booze and drugs.

This is a very defeatist view of life and one which doesn't have to
be. Fundamentally, people are happier with less involvement from the
state in their affairs, yet the state seeks to increase its influence.

The state influence you refer to is prescriptive. I want the Liberal
Democrats in government because they are less prescriptive and more
presumptive.

It's very easy to appear nice (not that I think they are) when you
don't have the responsibility of government and can have the luxury of
pontificating.

But I also want to live in a Britain which doesn't have
to continually hand out anti-social behaviour orders, or send
ministers abroad to preempt soccer hooliganism, or spend a fortune
each and every Friday night policing the streets as the drunken youths
and their girls stumble homewards. A decent society, that's all, as is
evident in many other countries - and, indeed, in some isolated parts
of Britain. You probably think I am exaggerating, don't you?

Yes I do. I've seen the same antisocial behaviour in many other
countries.





We probably don't want to
become midwives, because, well, babies are messy little things, aren't
they? All covered in blood and gore when they pop out! Who wants to do
something useful when it's far easier to work in a call centre or
stack tins of beans in Tesco's? It's our attitude to life that is the
problem. We are without ambition.

Some people are, and as long as the state bails them out will continue
to be.

Other countries are far more generous to their citizens and yet there
is a buzz in the air in those countries. Why is that?


And all the while we have the
"insurance policy" of the third world to call upon to do the jobs
don't want to do, we'll be okay, won't we, won't we...?

That isn't really the point, it is one of attitude and economics.

Well, we can't spend our way out of the problems, else we'd be paying
so much tax, there'd be no take-home pay left. We need to change our
attitude.

MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17:04 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

The self-employed? How come thousands of small businesses can provide
a useful service, both to their customers and themselves, with no
shareholders involved?

This always looks great on the outside to those looking in, but many
of the onlookers are too damn scared to try it for themselves because
it involves risk. Can't have that then can we? Put your own livelihood
on the line to try and eek out a living? Deary me, it could all go
wrong!

There are many times when trying to run your own business where you
start wondering whether the effort is really worth the hassle that
government insist on putting you through. Lots of red tape festooning
everything you try to do. Tickies in boxes, duplication, and of course
taxation demands - someone has to pay for all those civil servants who
check the tickies in boxes.

Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to trying to run a business,
large or small. I perceive that this situation is starting to have an
effect on their ability to be re-elected.

As for running my own small business, I was pushed rather than jumped.
Forced out of work by an unscrupulous employer not once but twice I
was encouraged to join the great unwashed of the IT industry -
wouldn't have gone self-employed if that hadn't happened.

Best thing I ever did. No more of the corporate office politics for me
nor trying to climb greasy ladders for a 1% pay rise next year and
some **** writing stupid words on my performance evaluation.

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:23:56 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...


Well, we can't spend our way out of the problems, else we'd be paying
so much tax, there'd be no take-home pay left. We need to change our
attitude.


But that's what the Libdems want to do!! Also they want to join the
worthless Euro and be ruled by Brussels!

Worthless?

Can't come soon enough for those of us like me who believe in Europe
and want Europe to be a strong bulwark against American hegemony.


What a choice!

You're right. Fantastic! What a choice!


I don't disagree with your desire to have a responsible, hard working well
paid population, but the only economy I've seen which rewards effort and
efficiency and controls taxes is the US. No, it's not perfect, but apart
from lacking universal healthcare, it's probably the best there is.

Not perfect? The US economy is dire! Look at the jobs situation! Look
at the enormous deficit that the Bushies have wrought when Clinton
left a surplus behind him! The state of the US economy is likely to
cost Dubya the election, along with all the lies told over Iraq.

MM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:20:26 +0000, PoP wrote:

Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to trying to run a business,
large or small. I perceive that this situation is starting to have an
effect on their ability to be re-elected.

Absolutely spot on. And running the country is in effect a large
business. After seven years of running around like headless chickens
the Govt still has no idea how to improve public services. Its answer
will be to employ yet more highly paid consultants and managers. I am
beginning to see that the only point in Labour is to act as a brake on
the Tories every so often, so that the Tories can get their act
together. I'm still going to vote for the Lib Dems though!

As for running my own small business, I was pushed rather than jumped.
Forced out of work by an unscrupulous employer not once but twice I
was encouraged to join the great unwashed of the IT industry -
wouldn't have gone self-employed if that hadn't happened.

"Unscrupulous" is synonymous with "employer" in my book. I wouldn't
cross the road to put the fire out in most cases.

Best thing I ever did. No more of the corporate office politics for me
nor trying to climb greasy ladders for a 1% pay rise next year and
some **** writing stupid words on my performance evaluation.

Totally agree. Those ruddy appraisals year in, year out! Such a bloody
waste of time, but how good did they make management feel! Its one and
only annual attempt to meet the people.

MM

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:51:03 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

In article , Sausage
King writes
In article ,
says...
I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.

Cuba has some of the highest crime rates ever recorded. It has been a
failure there too.

And they all drive ladas - a real crime, and a sure sign of a failed
economy.

Actually, they all drive 1950s Cadillacs ... w/ Lada engines

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:51:03 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

In article , Sausage
King writes
In article ,
says...
I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering
the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it
would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.

Cuba has some of the highest crime rates ever recorded. It has been a
failure there too.

And they all drive ladas - a real crime, and a sure sign of a failed
economy.

Actually, they all drive 1950s Cadillacs ... w/ Lada engines

And many of them are immaculate.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.


Not true, Chile has

Chile killed its own citizens for daring to have different beliefs. I
personally know a political exile from Chile. He and his family literally
had to run with just the clothes they had on their backs, otherwise they
would be no more.

snip drivel; this one is half mad

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
They said they are going to save billions and services the same. This
is
amazing! they must have invented a new way of adding up.


No, just gone back to the old system of 1nurse+1patient=2, unlike the
present Socialist system of 1nurse+3managers+ 57ticked boxes=2(maybes)

It was Thatcher who introduced two tiers of management into the NHS.

Replacing the three that were there before

Their were no tiers as they didn't need to add up the cost of operations.
There was no need.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
They said they are going to save billions and services the same. This
is
amazing! they must have invented a new way of adding up.


No, just gone back to the old system of 1nurse+1patient=2, unlike the
present Socialist system of 1nurse+3managers+ 57ticked boxes=2(maybes)

It was Thatcher who introduced two tiers of management into the NHS.

snip drivel

Look at the big picture. Find out who own and runs the UK, and for whose
benefit, which is not you and me. Read Who Runs Britain by Paxman and Who
Own Britain by Cahill. Understand them and then you will see a ruling class
of people who think they have the almighty right to rule, or heavily
influence matters and live the life of Riley to boot, while excluding others
(you and me). Voting Tory is shafting yourself, your family and friends.

Mike Mitchell wrote:


As for running my own small business, I was pushed rather than jumped.
Forced out of work by an unscrupulous employer not once but twice I
was encouraged to join the great unwashed of the IT industry -
wouldn't have gone self-employed if that hadn't happened.


"Unscrupulous" is synonymous with "employer" in my book. I wouldn't
cross the road to put the fire out in most cases.




Mmm. Never confuse he employer - the actual entity that owns the
business you work for - with the middle management tawt who has the
power to hire and fire you.

Middle managers are n a greasy pole climb. 99% of teh time they are here
because they want the extra salary, staus and power, not because they
have a clue about the job or teh first inkling of the fact that
management IS a job.

They are the Machiavellian princelings in the the country of the company.

Any employee is subcosnciously assessed on two basic parameters..nameley

(i) How much can this employee advance my career?

(ii) Whatt threat does this employee reprsent to me, in terms of me
being shown up to be relatively ignorant and useless?

Weka managers of this sort abound. A strong manager perceive no threat,
can handle criticism and admits mistakes.

Tony Bliar epitomizes a weak ambitious middle manager. Anyone who
disagrees with him, or makes him or hs government look shaky, is sacked.
Meanwhile he gathers a coterie of yes men and clever chaps around him
to blster his confidence and polish his image.

Until they et it wrong and have to go.

The difference between a strong manager and a weakone is very very sim0le.

The strong one is free to concentrate on getting the job done:
Analayisng the state of his part of the business, and working to improve
its efficiency and develop it in approprate directions.He is aslo
mindfu; of teh duty of care oqed to his employers - the shareholders -
and te staff.

A weak manager is preoccupied with gaining and maintaining his position.
To do this he feels (gernerally fairly correctly) that what is
important is creating and maintianing an illusion of competencey and
efficiency, not actally achieving it.

Of course ultimately such managers fail, or are promoted even higher to
get them out of the way (they probably have enough dirt on top
managements affairs with the tarts in typing) once the accountants have
been through the figures and worked out just how sloppy and inneficient
thay really are, or in other cases the whole company falls.

We will no doubt see sir Bliar, or Lord Bliar, in due course.

In a career of dealing wih such people I have learnt to recognise the
animal. The phrase 'no one ever got sacked for buying IBM' was invented
to describe them.



Best thing I ever did. No more of the corporate office politics for me
nor trying to climb greasy ladders for a 1% pay rise next year and
some **** writing stupid words on my performance evaluation.


Totally agree. Those ruddy appraisals year in, year out! Such a bloody
waste of time, but how good did they make management feel! Its one and
only annual attempt to meet the people.



Management hates them. It is however the one thing that they cannot
avoid. Its in the Bumper Book of What Managers Do.

Very few managers actually manage anything. Eeven if they have been on
management courses.


MM