On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:32:47 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
snip

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm alright, sod
you' types,

You didn't read what I said - that is far from being the case.. I
carefully made the point that there should be directed financial
provision where needed.

the only people who would benefit form your approach are those
running the (presumably) private service companies

The customer benefits from competition between service companies
simply because poor service results in customers going elsewhere.
This concentrates the mind.

- I'll grant that most of
the non front line structure of these HMG / LG run services need drastic
pruning but I don't see any need for HMG or LG to stop supplying the
service.

I do. There is little or no competitive element, little
accountability, little freedom of choice and huge amounts of
bureaucracy. The British NHS is the largest employer in western
Europe - a complete nonsense. It's impossible to run an effective
organisation or set of organisations on that basis, and no reason why
governments, be they national or local need to be in the service
business.



BTW, you mention education, but the biggest f*ck up has been in the last 20
years (with the national curriculum etc [1]), not that of the comprehensive
'experiment' as you call it, although I will admit that it had very many
faults (many brought about Grammar Schools and staff being forced to change.

[1] replacing out many practical subjects with ones that only produce a
frameble bit of paper but little real life skills.


Both comprehensive education and national curriculum are failed
educational experiments that should have been stopped. It is all
part of the same mentality that everybody has to be forced to have the
same thing. Of course it's marketed as equal opportunity, but the
reality is that people are different in terms of aptitude for
different things.

Academic education in academically focussed schools should be provided
for those who will benefit from it, practical education in schools
with facilities for them for people who will benefit from that.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re the British tax system ]

large snip


I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector. Look, if you will, to
the privatised former public services. The recently privatised
"companies" seem to gloat about their profits, which are paid for by
Joe Public, who has no realistic alternative supplier.


And in many cases NO possible alternative supplier, such as waste water.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm alright, sod
you' types, the only people who would benefit form your approach are those

That assertion does not seem to fit in with Andy's statement "...that
works well when I want it *and* still be able to contribute into a pot
for those who are not able to do so to a far more cost effective
extent than today." [my emphasis] does it?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
IMM wrote:
The ineternet does bring them out.

Stop talking about yourself.

As I say, "The ineternet does bring them out."

So you speak as badly as you spell?

Do you speak as badly as you think?

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

If you think about it there are plenty of other "only exceptions" as
well. Cases where flexible pipe is going to be a better solution:


In 90% plus of installations copper is better and feasible. You making
out
anomalies are the norm.

Ah, so we are down from everytime to 90% now... getting better.

Yes you can traverse joists with notches in a good number of cases, so
copper is easy enough then. For the cases where you can't however there
are other solutions that are simpler to implement. Is that so difficult
to understand?

Write down "One size does not fit all"

Copper canm be threaded through joists. It has to be soft copper.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:25:32 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




NO! I said "How much do you personally donate to the rich each year?"
You
are obsessed in keeping them that way. So, how much do you personally
donate
to the rich each year?

I told you already. To me, the rich are the government and the
so-called services provided by it. They are certainly the largest
owner of resources, the least accountable in real terms and the most
incompetent at managing them.

Wrong.

There is no choice of whether or not one wishes to donate, and only
limited choice on how much.

Well how much do you give to the rich?

The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.

You are right. Get rid of the royal family, Lords, ladies, and all the rest
of the parasites, Eton, Harrow, Oxbridge and that is just for starters.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...

Land Value Tax is the way. No other tax except that.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of

snip inane babble by a deranged mind

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:21:30 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:37:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

My opinion is that ALL of the basic "core" services - water, gas,
electricity, health, defence, emergency, judiciary and
telecommunications are entirely appropriate to the public sector.

Out of those, having *any* of them apart from defence, judiciary and
emergency in the public sector is a demonstrable disaster.
Consider the UK telecommunications industry prior to the privatisation
of BT - a total shambles with customers being referred to as
subscribers - that alone tells the story.
I've seen the privatisation of the former nationalised telcos of most
countries in western Europe. The difference is stunning. Those
that were privatised early, like BT (even with all its faults) have
done superbly well in comparison with the later ones.



The private sector exists to make a profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that. "Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".

The basis of competition is not for fun, it is for improvement of
shareholder return. That only comes about when customers choose to
buy the product or service from that company. If it is poor or at
the wrong price and they have a choice, they buy elsewhere - simple as
that. It should absolutely be the case that users of services
should be in control of the choices they make - that simply doesn't
happen in the state sector, and moreover, in many of them such as
healthcare and education, customers are penalised for making their own
choices. This is fundamentally wrong.

The Internet is far from being an enhanced service, it is absolutely
core and fundamental to business today and even to the creaking public
sector. Competition has been one of the key factors for the survival
of the fittest and it should be that way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare, education and energy.



I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

Look, if you will, to
the privatised former public services. The recently privatised
"companies" seem to gloat about their profits, which are paid for by
Joe Public, who has no realistic alternative supplier.

There is plenty of price and service competition in the electricity
and gas industries at consumer level. In water there is not and
should be. The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

It's a nonsense to have a situation where when the government is in a
sector (e.g. health and education) that the customer is forced to pay
for that, then if he wants something better/different has to fund it
himself without contribution for the most part from the state, even
though the state system has been unburdened. Added to this there is
then a penalty by way of tax and national insurance if the person's
employer pays for healthcare insurance. This is a ridiculous state of
affairs.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:37:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

My opinion is that ALL of the basic "core" services - water, gas,
electricity, health, defence, emergency, judiciary and
telecommunications are entirely appropriate to the public sector.

Yep. Private monopolies should not be. If a service is nationwide then it
should be ruin by the gov.

The private sector exists to make a
profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that.

I do. They are to provide the service first, not overpay themselves, as per
Rover, who are loosing money. Competition improves matters and that is
where the private sector is best. Not running a large service with no
competition.

"Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".

I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector,

There is lots in the private sector, but as it is not under public scrutiny,
they get away with it. Look at the drug companies. A captive market in
drugs and I have worked at some if some of the people there worked for a
nationalised industry, they would be sacked.

but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector. Look, if you will, to
the privatised former public services. The recently privatised
"companies" seem to gloat about their profits, which are paid for by
Joe Public, who has no realistic alternative supplier.

Private monopolies. Shouldn't be allowed and I would all the parasites who
are creaming it off.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:32:47 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
snip

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm alright,
sod
you' types,

You didn't read what I said

He did and he is right.

snip disjointed babble

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:51:15 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
.. .
snip

[ re the British tax system ]

large snip


I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector. Look, if you will, to
the privatised former public services. The recently privatised
"companies" seem to gloat about their profits, which are paid for by
Joe Public, who has no realistic alternative supplier.


And in many cases NO possible alternative supplier, such as waste water.

That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits, With electricity and gas the generating and
supply capacity is from a limited range of sources, and delivery
mechanisms but these are separated from the consumer and he can choose
between different retail suppliers. Exactly the same can be done for
disposal.

..

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:18:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Yep. Private monopolies should not be. If a service is nationwide then it
should be ruin by the gov.

It almost always is........




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:06:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...

Land Value Tax is the way. No other tax except that.



Not even that.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:21:30 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:37:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

My opinion is that ALL of the basic "core" services - water, gas,
electricity, health, defence, emergency, judiciary and
telecommunications are entirely appropriate to the public sector.

Out of those, having *any* of them apart from defence, judiciary and
emergency in the public sector is a demonstrable disaster.

Why don't we have private armies? we have private companies running prisons
and escorting people from prisons to courts, etc.

Consider the UK telecommunications
industry prior to the privatisation
of BT - a total shambles with customers
being referred to as
subscribers

What balls.The uptime rate of the system was far higher.

- that alone tells the story.

Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service levels are
appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of water at 4 bar. Do we
get it like other countries? Not on your Nelly. We spend a fortune on
antiquated tank and cylinder systems to cope with the appalling water
supply. To have a shower in which you don't have to run around in to get
wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes fitted.
Unbelievable.

A Yorkshire water company was erecting stand pipes and cutting off supplies
as the reservoirs were too low. Over 30% of the mains were leaking, so all
their money should have been repairing the leaks and replacing mains. Not
on your Nelly! They paid a dividend shareholders and paid an extra special
divvy as well. How can these people pay dividends when the system requires
millions to make it work. Total rip off merchants. I would burn em all.

The private sector exists to make a profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that. "Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".

The basis of competition is not for fun, it is for improvement of
shareholder return.

Exactly. Service levels should be first, and only first. Profit is a bonus

That only comes about when customers choose to
buy the product or service from that company.

Or have no choice to, like water or drugs.

The Internet is far from being an
enhanced service, it is absolutely
core and fundamental to business
today and even to the creaking public
sector. Competition has been one
of the key factors for the survival
of the fittest

The service levels given by ISPs is appalling. It is all geared to make
money, not provide a service.

and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
God forgive him as he knows not what he does.

I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

With water and drugs you don't.

The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

NO. the problems are because it is in profit making greedy hands.

It's a nonsense to have a situation where when the government is in a
sector (e.g. health and education) that the customer is forced to pay
for that, then if he wants something better/different has to fund it
himself without contribution for the most part from the state, even
though the state system has been unburdened.

That is your choice if you want to feed your petty snobbery mind then do so.
You get a tax break to feed your Little Middle Englander mind.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Why not privatize things like defence? After all, it's a major profit
maker for the private sector. Regardless of how efficient they are. And
they often aren't.

Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
All of these when government operated do a poor job of customer
service and are poor value for money for the user and the taxpayer who
is funding it.,

You'd have to define 'poor value' For the rich maybe. For the poor,
invaluable. And that's what a decent society should be about, IMHO.

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Copper canm be threaded through joists. It has to be soft copper.

As used by one soft in the head? If he could actually find a source of
soft copper tube. At an economic price. Not that that matters to an IMM.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:03:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Why don't we have private armies?

There are. They're called mercenaries.

Other than that, the investment is rather high.


we have private companies running prisons
and escorting people from prisons to courts, etc.

Yep. Good thing.


Consider the UK telecommunications
industry prior to the privatisation
of BT - a total shambles with customers
being referred to as
subscribers

What balls.The uptime rate of the system was far higher.

I don' t think so.




- that alone tells the story.

Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service levels are
appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of water at 4 bar. Do we
get it like other countries? Not on your Nelly. We spend a fortune on
antiquated tank and cylinder systems to cope with the appalling water
supply. To have a shower in which you don't have to run around in to get
wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes fitted.
Unbelievable.

A Yorkshire water company was erecting stand pipes and cutting off supplies
as the reservoirs were too low. Over 30% of the mains were leaking, so all
their money should have been repairing the leaks and replacing mains. Not
on your Nelly! They paid a dividend shareholders and paid an extra special
divvy as well. How can these people pay dividends when the system requires
millions to make it work. Total rip off merchants. I would burn em all.

It would be possible to separate production, distribution and retail
into different elements as has been done successfully with gas and
electricity.





The private sector exists to make a profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that. "Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".

The basis of competition is not for fun, it is for improvement of
shareholder return.

Exactly. Service levels should be first, and only first. Profit is a bonus

No, the prospect of profit is what attracts investment in the private
sector and quite rightly so. Business viability, longevity, profit
and return on investment for shareholders only happens if the business
is a success. In a service industry, that only happens if people buy
the service. Where there is a choice, customers can buy elsewhere if
they are unhappy. So service does remain the key factor, because
there is keen accountability fo rthe success of the business.



That only comes about when customers choose to
buy the product or service from that company.

Or have no choice to, like water or drugs.

Water supply could easily be re-organised and operated with the
choices offered in the gas and electricity industries. They are all
production, delivery and suppply of a commodity. THe consumer can
benefit from choice of retail supplier.

The drugs industry is a totally different situation. The
manufacturers have vast investments for development upon which they
need a return for future investment and shareholder return.
At a certain point, new drugs become generic and prices fall.



The Internet is far from being an
enhanced service, it is absolutely
core and fundamental to business
today and even to the creaking public
sector. Competition has been one
of the key factors for the survival
of the fittest

The service levels given by ISPs is appalling. It is all geared to make
money, not provide a service.

That depends on the service you buy. If you want to pay £20 a month
for your connection, you are not going to get the same response in
case of problems as you will if you pay £100.

If somebody invests in the infrastucture to provide a paid service,
they expect a return on that investment - seems reasonable to me.

They aren't in business to hand out oranges and nosegays.



and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.

Actually I'd prefer it to be shut down and not to be paying the
government to be in the healthcare delivery business. It does an
appallingly bad job.


I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

With water and drugs you don't.

It's entirely possible for the water industry to be organised as other
utility industries.

The drugs industry is a completely different issue.



It's a nonsense to have a situation where when the government is in a
sector (e.g. health and education) that the customer is forced to pay
for that, then if he wants something better/different has to fund it
himself without contribution for the most part from the state, even
though the state system has been unburdened.

That is your choice if you want to feed your petty snobbery mind then do so.
You get a tax break to feed your Little Middle Englander mind.

There is no tax break if I pay for my own healthcare and education
services. It is actually worse than that because extra taxes are
paid if I do so.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement

How about land? Open all of that up to market forces? Monopolies? Of
course they should not be in business. But land is full of them. What is
good for the goose is good for the gander.
____________________
HOW LAND AFFECTS THE AVERAGE PERSON

Contents:

INTRODUCTION
PROBLEMS
THE UK HAS A LAND SURPLUS
QUESTIONS
PLANNING
SOLUTIONS
1. Nationalise Land
2. Redistribute Land.
3. Land Value Tax
THE WAY FORWARD


INTRODUCTION

The UK has a very big problem that lies at the root of many of its problems;
it is the usage and ownership of "land". Most people are not aware that
land is a big problem that affects just about every man, woman and child in
the UK. This problem has been effectively suppressed.

PROBLEMS

The value of land accounts for 2/3 of the value of the average home in the
UK - a very big problem.

Some points relating to high land prices:

a) House Prices Are Far Too High

The people of the UK pay very high prices for very small high density homes.
UK house prices are amongst the highest in the world in comparison to
comparable countries. The more land is a greater part of the total house
price the higher house prices become. An acre of agricultural land can be
purchased for £2,000, a complete eco kit home for £20,000, yet the average
price of a house in the UK is near to £200,000. Obtaining planning
permission to erect a house in a country with a land surplus will be near
impossible. Few people realise that the high land value is the reason why
their homes are so expensive.

b) High Land Prices Disrupt Family Life

High land values cascading into high house prices entails that both parents
of homes in the vast majority of families need to work to pay mortgages to
keep a very small roof over their heads. Only about 8% of UK families have
the wife at home full time. This breakdown in traditional family life
results in the latch-key kids, who all too often end up as delinquents and
in trouble. Vandalism and graffiti is rife in the UK giving the country a
very poor image.

c) People Priced Out of Housing Market

The problem of not allowing people to build on land is surfacing in parts of
the country where people with low incomes and in some cases not so low, are
being priced out of the housing market. Many cannot afford to live in the
towns, villages and city districts where they were born and brought up,
having to leave splitting family groups. Many of these towns and villages
are surrounded by low grade land which lays idle through public subsidy.
Small builders and individual selfbuilders are eager to build on this land
to fill the local housing gap; however they are prevented from doing so.

This artificial shortage of available building land reduces home ownership.
Home ownership in the UK is at 68% which is lower than Spain, Finland,
Ireland, Greece, Australia and New Zealand and very close to rates in Italy,
Portugal and Luxembourg.

The land is not serving the people. Not only that, it financially penalises
the people.

d) Houses Far Too Small

The averaged sized home in the UK is a paltry 120 square metres. In Japan,
a country notorious for small homes, the average sized home is 140 square
metres. The averaged size living room in the UK is a miniscule 13 foot by
15 foot; a room which has to function as TV room, children's play room,
entertainment room and relaxation room. If the averaged sized man stands in
the middle of a typical British living room and stretched out an arm he will
hit either a wall or ceiling. British TV has many programmes dedicated to
giving a larger feel to a room by careful choice of furnishing and colour
co-ordination.

The housing charity, Shelter, estimate 500,000 households are officially
overcrowded.

e) Consumer Debt Is Mainly Mortgages

The media is full of tales of high consumer debt in the UK. Few state that
80% is actually mortgages, not debt for luxury goods; giving the impression
the people of the UK are financially reckless and decadent. In short,
people pay extortionate amounts for a tiny roof to keep themselves warm and
dry.

f) High Land Prices Discourage Commerce and Industry

High land prices result in high rents, which are passed onto commerce and
industry. Many foreign investors and companies have been discouraged from
establishing in the UK because of uncompetitive rents.

g) People Prevented From Building Affordable Homes

Preventing people from building affordable homes in the countryside forces
them into urban areas where many will be given publicly owned or subsidised
homes, paid for from our taxes. We pay from public money, which could be
better spend on needy projects, to house people who would otherwise pay for
and build their own homes. This is obviously a ludicrous situation.
Taxpayes money keeps land idle and is also used to house people. Better use
can be made of public money.

h) Land is at Root of Traveller Problems

Approximately 300,000 people the UK travel the roads in caravans,
effectively homeless. Some traveller societies, mainly the original
Gypsies, have deep routes and traditions of travelling, most do not. Many
have become a nuisance to the wider society and are firmly unwanted and
unwelcome wherever they set up camp. The root cause that initially forced
theses people onto the roads was access to land to live on. The Irish
travelling communities originated when Ireland's land was owned by a handful
of people forcing these people off the land they lived on. Many of the
travellers in the UK originate from Ireland. Most traveller families want a
permanent place to live. The evictions of Travellers caravans from land
they actually own when attempting a permanent settlement clearly
demonstrates this. If travellers were allowed to build permanent homes the
problem would be alleviated.

- Strange that land can be the root of excessive house prices, however very
true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of much child and teenage
vandalism, however very true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of forcing people out of their
home towns and villages, splitting up families, however very true.

- Strange that land can result in homes being far too small, however very
true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of disrupted families, however
very true.

- Strange that land can discourage business and growth, however very true.

- Strange that land accounts for vast profits by financial institutions
lending money for homes with inflated prices, however very true.

- Strange in that land increases our tax burden on subsidised homes, however
very true.

- Strange in that land created, and maintains, the problem of the
travellers, however very true.

The above is all very true.

THE UK HAS A LAND SURPLUS

Contrary to popular belief, the UK has approximately only 7% of its land
built on. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK actually
has a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the South East of
England, only 7.1% is built on with the Home Counties being underpopulated.
The North West of England is densest with 9.9% built upon.

Question 1. So why does land account for 2/3 of the value of the average
home, with all the negative spins offs, if we have all this land available?

Quite simply, the deliberate creation of an artificial land shortage, which
ramps up land prices.

Question 2. What creates this artificial land shortage?

The 1947 Town and Country Planning act, introduced by a "Labour" government,
that promised land reform during the 1945 general election, herds people in
small isolated highly dense pockets of land in urban areas. Amazingly the
Labour government allowed the Council for the Protection of Rural England
(CPRE) to be involved in drafting the act. CPRE was formed by large
landowners. They influenced the act to suit themselves. The naïve Labour
administration at the time accepted their input. Over 90% of the population
now live in urbanised areas, the second highest percentage in Europe,
leaving the countryside virtually empty, because of this draconian act.
This crams near 55 million people into around 7% of the land, which is only
4.2 million acres out of a UK total of 60 million acres. 60 million people
own just 6% of the land.

The act prevents us from building on the countryside, even though much of it
is being paid to remain idle by taxpayers money. A countryside that has
lost people at an alarming rate over the past 30 years. The people of the
UK are forced into tight urban pockets paying extortionate prices for land,
and subsequently houses. Their taxes are used to reinforce this bizarre
situation by paying to:

1. Keep land unused to maintain an artificial land shortage inflating house
prices.
2. House people unnecessarily in public funded housing.

This adds insult to injury. A contemptuous slap in the face.

Question 3. Who are the biggest benefactors of this artificial land
shortage?

a) Primarily Large Landowners.

The ludicrously small figure of 0.65% of the UK population own 68.3% of the
land, many are aristocratic families dating back many hundreds of years.
Despite propaganda stating that the British aristocracy is poverty stricken
and exists no more, they have managed to hang on to their lucrative acres
very well, and in many cases expand their empires.

The root of this situation came about from the Norman conquest. The Normans
gave land to people who were favourable to them. In short, many of these
families were traitors to their own kind conspiring with invaders. The
Saxons had a very different approach to land, its ownership and usage.
Later, the enclosures of common lands and the Highland croft clearances
completed the land rout. The situation has never been rectified.

The UK still has this landowning aristocratic legacy, which still, despite
propaganda stating otherwise, has a large effect and influence on the
British people. Large landowners are part of the British establishment and
do everything in their power to keep the status quo. The late Enoch Powel
described the British establishment as "the power that need not speak its
name". A very astute description.

Most of these landowners produce little making their vast profits by taking
rent. When the media reports that times are hard for farmers, they omit the
word "tenant". It should be "tenant farmers". When times are bad the
landowner always gets his rent, or takes the farm back, paying no taxes on
it when idle, and leaves it until times are better.

To justify their monopolies in land ownership, large landowners state they
are only custodians of the land and only they can maintain the land
properly. "Maintaining the land properly" is rather open and vague, if they
ever do such a thing of course. If these people are only custodians and
looking after the land for our benefit, then why aren't the public allowed
on uncultivated land? These "custodians" fence off all their lands and only
allow on people when forced to by law. Their claims clearly do not hold
water.

The UK has never had a revolution and no political party has had the stomach
to face up to large landowners, who are a legacy of our totally unjust past.
Landed families infiltrate the top brass of the military. In the 1960s,
there were many rumours of military coups against the reforming Wilson
government as many in the British establishment thought, amongst other
things, he would nationalise land. After all, in 1945 Atlee promise land
reform, but ran out of time, so Wilson, a major part of the Atlee
government, should carry out the promise when the Labour party returned to
power, which he mysteriously never did.

Tony Blair ejected from the House of Lords 66 hereditary peers, who between
them owned the equivalent of 4.5 average sized English counties. The Royal
family controls approximate the size of one average sized English county.
The Duke of Argyle owns vast tracts of Scotland. Historically landowners
have been a problem; the Irish famine was a direct result of large
landowners. The problem is still with us and in many respects even greater.
With large landowners being omnipresent in the Palace of Westminster, land
reform would always be difficult if near impossible. Tony Blair ejecting
hereditary peers is the first step in land reform, as one barrier has been
partially dismantled.

"Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They
simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with
title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was
going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the
excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the
heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they
had the power to do so." - George Orwell.

b) Large Construction Companies.

Approximately 80% of all homes built in the UK are built by about only 20
companies. In no other country in the western world does such a monopoly
exist. The sort of situation seen in banana republics. The House Builders
Federation influences the building regulations so heavily in order to
maintain the status quo that the UK is backwards in house building
technology compared to large parts of Western Europe, Scandinavia and North
America. The House Builders Federation opposes any increase in building
regulations that they perceive will eat into their members vast profits.
They opposed all increases in insulation standards and in 1990 described the
proposed insulation increase as a cosmetic exercise.

Graham Chapman, the founder the Lotus motor car company, wanted to make the
best sports cars, and aimed to do so. Large house developers only want
profit not caring about the poor quality dross they serve up. None want to
build the best designed and constructed houses. As no Graham Chapman is
present in the British construction industry, they will have to be
legislated into leading edge advanced designs and construction.

The deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has verbally ordered developers to
adopt advanced technology and improve the renowned poor quality of new
homes. Otherwise he says he will intervene. However, there is no
legislation to force the issue, although Prescott's famed left hook might.
If there is a change of government or minister would the successor have the
same drive as Prescott? All encouraging, however without firm legislation
as the driver, quite hollow.

It comes as no surprise that amongst the richest people in the UK are
landowners and construction company owners. The richest man in the USA is
Bill Gates a creator of software products that people benefit from - he is
productive, he produces. In the UK, the richest man is the Duke of
Westminster, who primarily takes in rent.

c) A Poor Performing Industry

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, which only accounts for
about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry
is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for
much needed higher quality homes for people. Much of the land is paid to
remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of
agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper
elsewhere.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery
and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the
hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for
the greater good of our society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We
also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel
industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad.
Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry that
consumes vast tracts of land that certainly could be better used? What is
good for the goose is good for the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is about £4.5 billion per year, up to £6
billion if BSE and Foot and Mouth is taken into account. This is £6 billion
to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry,
about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture
absorbs, and about 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to
farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of
the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the people of the
UK. Allowing people to spread out and live amongst nature is highly
desirable and at the same time lower land prices. This means lower house
prices which the UK desperately requires. Second country homes could be
within reach of many people, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation
and construction industries, and keeping people n touch with the nature of
their own country. In Germany few people do not have access to a large
forest which they tend to walk in at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal
for recreation and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could
be turned over to public forests.


Question 4. Why is this artificial land shortage tolerated by the people of
the UK?

Quite simply the large landowners have waged a subtle highly successful
propaganda campaign that has convinced the people of the UK that they do not
have enough land and that nothing should be built on open countryside.
Propaganda may appear too strong a word, however propaganda it certainly is.
Large landowners point to very large countries like the USA and Australia as
proof the UK is small with open countryside scarce. When viewing the UK in
isolation it is not small and can easily support its 60 million people and
even lots more. Open countryside is in abundance. The propaganda campaign
has been so successful, you will find poor people in inner city sink estates
agreeing that the countryside should not be built on; people who probably
have never even stepped on a field.

Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as "concreting over
the countryside" and "urban sprawl". With only about 7% of the land built
on, we can't concrete over the countryside even if we wanted to. About two
thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the
remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on
open countryside.

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that
if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion
naturally tails off. In olden times this hour was on foot or on horseback,
now it is in cars or on public transport. So we can't "sprawl" too far
either. In England the area of greenbelt has doubled since 1980, with
nearly 21 million acres absorbed in total. The UK actually has greenbelt
sprawl.

The biggest propaganda organs a the Council For The Protection of Rural
England and the Countryside Alliance. Green movements like Friends of the
Earth have been accused of being fronts for large landowners. Large
landowners use green groups to keep people out of the countryside. The
former is an organisation formed by large landowners and the latter is
funded by large landowners. Their angle is keep the status quo by keeping
townies out of the countryside, and also keeping villagers in villages. A
Cabinet Office report described the countryside as, "the near exclusive
preserve of the more affluent sections of society."

The Council for the Protection of Rural England have protected little of the
character of the English countryside since world war two, despite their
claims. In 1940 the German air force took photo reconnaissance photos of
largely southern England. The captured photos, when compared to the
ordnance survey maps of 1870, 70 years before, clearly indicated there was
little difference in topology. When compared to the ordnance survey maps of
today, there are vast changes. The 1947 T&C planning act just allowed
landscape raping agriculturalists, who contribute no more than around 2.5%
to the UK economy, to go wild.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England claim to be acting in the
interest of the land, wildlife and the countryside in general. This is far
from the case. It is the obscene profits of large landowners they are
primarily interested in, protecting little of rural England.

PLANNING

Land reform must mesh with decent relaxed planning laws that allow people to
build on all land. Laws passed relating to land are rendered sterile if
relaxed planning laws are not implemented. Areas of natural beauty, SSSI's,
national parks, industrial and commercial sectors etc, of course should have
restrictions, which still leaves a vast amount of subsidised field Britain
to build on. Building on a larger mass of land will eliminate the
unappealing high density, high impact developer estates; the sort that make
people shudder, with many having to buy as they have Hobson's choice. When
people are weary of building on the countryside they envisage high density,
high impact developer estates. The vision of these estates stirs negative
emotions. That clearly would not occur if the people are allowed to spread
out on the land. With cheaper land, people would build larger houses on
larger plots for less money. Having the large developers curtailed will
result in a mixed assortment of higher quality homes.

The autonomous house is virtually here. Superinsulation, septic tanks,
combined heat & power units, grey water re-cycling, rainwater harvesting,
wireless communications, mobile phones, amongst others, are all here. This
sort of house also has a low impact on the environment. Connection to urban
utilities is no longer necessary. Locating homes with all modern
conveniences, just about anywhere in the UK is now feasible. Herding people
into urban communities because they offered basic utilities is no longer
need be the case.

A farmer can build a 40 foot ugly concrete barn structure without planning
permission. The agricultural industry in some areas has blotted the
landscape as far as the eye can see with polythene tunnels to grow fruits of
which some are not native to the UK. If a good looking house was built to
the local vernacular visually enhancing the countryside, without planning
permission, it would be pulled down by the authorities. Houses are deemed
to blot the countryside and undesirable, yet raw concrete and polythene is
not, and is accepted.

We should be living amongst nature, not having to drive out to see it.
Walking on land is another matter, as most of it is fenced off.

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their
native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads" - Henry George.

Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built
on. We now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these sites vacant,
cleaned up and made natural again by turned them into parks, woods and
encouraging wildlife for the local people to enjoy. This is an ideal
opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the quality of life of
urban dwellers righting the wrongs of the incompetent planners of the past.
Areas like Hampstead Heath should be actively encouraged. Woods in towns
and cities would also be a great bonus. The deliberate differentiation
between town and country requires abolition as the Town & Country planning
act attempts to divide. Using the words town and country sets the tone. It
creates conflict. It creates two separate societies. It creates distrust.

When presenting an advanced German Huf Haus house on TV, Quentin Wilson
stated that modern architecture in Britain ceased after world war two.
Quentin was totally correct. The 1947 Town & Country Planning act curtailed
advancement in design, being hostile to change. Top British eco architects
Brenda and Robert Vale left the UK to practice abroad, disillusioned at a
planning system that firmly restricts advancement.

The 2004 PPS7 planning law, may hopefully pave the way for people to live
back in the countryside and build individual homes on greenfield sites. The
proviso is that it must be an eco house, well designed, modern, with
advanced construction techniques. Taken from the act:

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

"11. Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the
design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special
justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be
truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials,
methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the
environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural
areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the
highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement
of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics
of the local area."

The PPS7 law, which on paper actively encourages advanced eco construction,
is a positive step. If PPS7 is implemented anything like the previous PPG7,
Gummers law, which permitted building houses in the countryside, then hope
is lost rendering this law a cosmetic exercise. Approximately 100 houses
were built in the countryside under Gummers law from 1997 to 2004, a figure
is so low not worth considering. Theoretically you could build, however the
planners would block proposals at every angle and opportunity rendering the
law virtually useless.

SOLUTIONS

1. Nationalise Land
2. Redistribute Land.
3. Land Value Tax


1. NATIONALISE LAND

In theory, the Queen, the state, owns all the land in the UK. A nation
state has sovereignty over its own territory. In short, it owns all the
land. So how can individual people own its land too? Sounds like horse
trading. A workaround was to grant an infinite lease on the land, the
title, and the ability to sell on the lease. Effectively this is land
ownership by individuals or organisations.

For the state to take direct control of land would be a difficult task to
undertake. It would not be generally accepted by the people, although they
own it anyhow. Compensation would be demanded by landowners. Compensating
large landowners would be akin to compensating slave traders when slavery
was abolished; as the British government did. The concept of "land
ownership" has been in the western psyche for hundreds of years, and
redirecting their mindset would be difficult and lengthy.

Nationalising land would mean some form of lease back arrangement, which the
government would receive rents. Of course, a relaxed planning system must
accompany such nationalisation, to allow people to freely live on the land.


2. REDISTRIBUTE LAND.

Most major western nations have re-distributed land having laws preventing
large areas of land being in the hands of a few people. These countries
generally have a higher quality of life than the UK because of their
sensible land laws. The British government started the ball rolling in the
late 1800s to re-distribute land in Ireland. It was accomplished in 2000
with the Irish Land Commission being disbanded completing the task. The
land had to be bought from the larger landowners, none was confiscated.
Land re-distribution in Ireland has been attributed as one of the platforms
of its economic success. Large landowners were a direct cause of the Irish
famine, which eventually resulted in the Irish rebellion. Land being in the
hands of a few is not ideal from many aspects.

The British government is to pay for land re-distribution in Zimbabwe -
using British taxpayers money. The British government can re-distribute
land elsewhere in the world, but fails to do so in its own backyard. A
backyard screaming out for land and planning reform.

In 1945 the USA assessed Japan and how it should cope with the future. They
assessed that land ownership was a major obstacle, being in the hands of a
few people. To great effect land re-distribution was forced on the
Japanese, being attributed as one of the keystones of their post war
economic miracle.

Land re-distribution is effective. It may mean large landowners will have
to sell parts of their estates, with laws capping land ownership levels. Of
course, a relaxed planning system must accompany such re-distribution, to
allow people to freely live on the land.


3. LAND VALUE TAX (LVT)

Henry George, an American, the man who devised LVT, initially proposed
government ownership of all land, as the people owned it anyhow. Getting it
across and accepted would have been virtually impossible. If you say,
redistribute land, people cry "communism, taking away from me what is mine".
Henry George realised that people will not accept that you cannot own land.
It is in the western worlds, especially the Anglo Saxon, psyche. That is
where LVT excels. Own land by all means, but if you own half of Scotland
just to shoot birds on, tax will be due on that land, which currently is not
the case. LVT will force large landowners to sell land and not hoard it.
It will also encourage them to make productive use of the land; if they
cannot then they sell it to someone who can make productive use of it.

LVT taxes only the "value" of the land, which is based on the market value
of the land. LVT, regards property as the items on the land, not the land
itself. Someone in northern Scotland on one acre will pay very little as
the land is not worth so much. Someone in central London with one acre pays
substantially more.

LVT does not tax a mans labour, and hence his productivity, which the
current system does, holding back advancement.

Currently people's labour and lifestyle is taxed. The more you work, the
more tax you pay. If I build a nice extension to my house so my family can
enjoy and improve their quality of life, the council tax is raised. Totally
ludicrous. There can be two one-acre plots side by side. I want to build
an eight-roomed house for my family to enjoy and the man next door a
two-bedroom bungalow, so he can enjoy the land for gardening. Under the
current system, I pay more than next door in council tax. Under LVT we pay
the same as the bricks on the land is not regarded as taxable, only the land
is. A large house creates jobs in building the structure and ongoing
maintenance, yet the current system suppresses job creation and curtails the
quality of life by penalising people who build larger houses. The word
large is all relevant. A large house in the UK would be an average house in
the USA.

LVT spreads the proceeds of a society's productivity more evenly than at
present. It does not penalise a person's effort to advance.

"Land should be taxed as much as possible, and improvements as little as
possible." - Milton Friedman (economist)

"I have made speeches by the yard on the subject of land-value taxation,
and you know what a supporter I am of that policy." - Winston Churchill

THE WAY FORWARD

Sort out the land and planning systems and many problems that appear
unrelated in British society disappear. It is not a panacea to right all
the country's ills; however it will be a superb base on which to spring
from, as other countries have effectively demonstrated, and right many, many
of the problems of our unfair and uneven society.

A stumbling block to any reform by the general public is that many home
owners perceive that planning and land reform will devalue their homes and
result in negative equity. The country appears obsessed with house price
values. Value is an abstract concept with cash being the reality. In some
areas negative equity may be the case, although some opinion is that this
would not occur. A fund taken from LVT taxes could compensate those who
drop into the trap. As land prices rise with time, negative equity would
cease to be a problem, just a transitional problem from changing from one
system to another.

Clearly the public need to be informed that land, the God given stuff under
their feet, without which we cannot survive, is the major problem in their
own advancement and actually curtails their current living standards and
quality of life. That is the man in the inner city sink estate, the man in
the terraced house, the man in the box semi, the man in the executive home
and the country villager. Once the public is aware and this suppressed
problem becomes an open issue, then the road is clear for land reform no
matter what method is selected. Until then land and land tax reformers are
sailing into the wind. Emphasis must be moved to educate and alert the
average man and how he is directly affected.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:13:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Why not privatize things like defence? After all, it's a major profit
maker for the private sector. Regardless of how efficient they are. And
they often aren't.

True, but it's normally something where the delivery has to be
co-ordinated on a national level for operational reasons in time of
conflict. That's why I also excluded emergency services. The
judiciary represents a method of maintaining a stable society -on an
distant basis, a part of democracy itself and so a special case.



Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
All of these when government operated do a poor job of customer
service and are poor value for money for the user and the taxpayer who
is funding it.,

You'd have to define 'poor value' For the rich maybe. For the poor,
invaluable. And that's what a decent society should be about, IMHO.

I think that it's poor value if compare with hospitals and primary
care in other countries. If I want appointments for diagnosis and
treatment in the public sector I have to wait until it suits them and
then be expected to be grateful for what I get.

Diagnosis and management of common medical conditions is systemised
and made a subject of government policy. For example, the
government wants to measure, build statistics and decide on treatment
for blood lipid profile based on total cholesterol. This is not
considered medically that useful by most experts whereas LDL and HDL
levels are important as is their ratio.

That's one simple example, and I've found many more like it. The
whole thing takes on the characteristic of a system with national
standards and decision making and does not address individual need
properly. My main issue is with the inherent systemisation of it
all.

This is not an issue of the ability to pay, but of the government
operating a healthcare system in general.

I completely agree that a decent society should have a means of
providing healthcare for all, including the poor and vulnerable. I
was careful to say that.
In other words, everybody should receive "money" in the form of
vouchers or equivalent to spend on healthcare and on education.
Unfortunately I do think that some method of control is needed because
there will be peoplw who given money instead would spend it on other
things and not cover themselves.

Everybody should be provided with enough voucher cover to get at least
as good a service as they get today and probably better because of
there being more providers being encouraged into the sectors.

People wishing to top up their voucher with money or insurance because
they'd like a private hospital room or an appointment at a different
time or a more suitable school should be able to do so. As it is
today, to exercise choice in education I have to pay twice and for
healthcare three times.
I'm not saying that I mind contributing to the common good, simply
that I would like a choice on what I derive from that common good and
to actually get something in return for my payments.






--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:36:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement

How about land? Open all of that up to market forces? Monopolies? Of
course they should not be in business. But land is full of them. What is
good for the goose is good for the gander.

The expression is "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander".


snip tripe







--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:51:15 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
.. .
snip

[ re the British tax system ]

large snip


I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector. Look, if you will, to
the privatised former public services. The recently privatised
"companies" seem to gloat about their profits, which are paid for by
Joe Public, who has no realistic alternative supplier.


And in many cases NO possible alternative supplier, such as waste water.

That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits,

No, all you are doing is creating yet another bureaucratic machine, how can
you swap providers other than laying new pipe ?!

Competition is more than who you pay money to.


With electricity and gas the generating and
supply capacity is from a limited range of sources, and delivery
mechanisms but these are separated from the consumer and he can choose
between different retail suppliers.

He can chose to pay somone differnt for his electricity, the electricity
still comes from the same source company(s) and is carried by the same power
lines.

Competition is more than who you pay money to.

Exactly the same can be done for
disposal.


Not when you HAVE to use the services that already exist.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:36:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement

How about land? Open all of that up to market forces? Monopolies? Of
course they should not be in business. But land is full of them. What
is
good for the goose is good for the gander.

The expression is "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander".

Yoiu can't even get that right.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:33:45 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:36:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement

How about land? Open all of that up to market forces? Monopolies? Of
course they should not be in business. But land is full of them. What
is
good for the goose is good for the gander.

The expression is "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander".

Yoiu can't even get that right.

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/what's+sauce+for+the+goose+is+sauce+for+the+gander .



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service levels are
appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of water at 4 bar. Do
we
get it like other countries?

In many countries we have it better....

Not on your Nelly. We spend a fortune on
antiquated tank and cylinder systems to cope with the appalling water
supply.

So you would prefer a system that has no reserve, so when the delivery
system fails so does any means of having water for 'vital' domestic health
related services also fail ?...

To have a shower in which you don't have to run around in to get
wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes
fitted.
Unbelievable.

A Yorkshire water company was erecting stand pipes and cutting off
supplies
as the reservoirs were too low. Over 30% of the mains were leaking, so all
their money should have been repairing the leaks and replacing mains. Not
on your Nelly! They paid a dividend shareholders and paid an extra special
divvy as well. How can these people pay dividends when the system
requires
millions to make it work. Total rip off merchants. I would burn em all.

That is the trouble with public services being run as a profit making,
dividend paying company, there will always be a conflict between what should
be done and what is done - just as with any true private company, but in
those companies the customers have *real* choice, not just imaginary choice.


The private sector exists to make a profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that. "Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".

The basis of competition is not for fun, it is for improvement of
shareholder return.

Exactly. Service levels should be first, and only first. Profit is a bonus

That only comes about when customers choose to
buy the product or service from that company.

Or have no choice to, like water or drugs.

The Internet is far from being an
enhanced service, it is absolutely
core and fundamental to business
today and even to the creaking public
sector. Competition has been one
of the key factors for the survival
of the fittest

The service levels given by ISPs is appalling. It is all geared to make
money, not provide a service.

I have no problem in what level service is given by the ISP, there is
genuine choice available, but I do have a problem with the delivery system
were many have no choice what so ever - you either use BT wires or you don't
use the service who ever the ISP (or phone) supplier is.


and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
God forgive him as he knows not what he does.

He seems wants it like the USA, were those with money have the best care,
those below poverty get charity and those who are neither fail into a void -
and there are plenty in that last group, there health often getting worse
until they are either in poverty or have to be registered as disabled and
thus get Medicare.


I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

But in the 'service' sector such as water, energy and to a great extent
telecoms there is no real choice, only who you pay the bill to - that is not
genuine choice.


With water and drugs you don't.

The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

NO. the problems are because it is in profit making greedy hands.

I have no problem with dividends or bonus payments, but only after the
system is working 110 percent, until then those in charge have failed there
prime duty (and anyone who argues that dividends / bonuses are the prime
function of a [public] service company shows their true colours IMO).

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:18:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Yep. Private monopolies should not be. If a service is nationwide then
it
should be ruin by the gov.

It almost always is........


No it is not, what sector is British gas in, what sector are the energy
companies in, what sector is the telecoms in, what sector is the waste water
services in, what sector is the water supply services in... The list could
go on.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:13:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Why not privatize things like defence? After all, it's a major profit
maker for the private sector. Regardless of how efficient they are. And
they often aren't.

True, but it's normally something where the delivery has to be
co-ordinated on a national level for operational reasons in time of
conflict. That's why I also excluded emergency services. The
judiciary represents a method of maintaining a stable society -on an
distant basis, a part of democracy itself and so a special case.


But basic services such as health, education and



Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
All of these when government operated do a poor job of customer
service and are poor value for money for the user and the taxpayer who
is funding it.,

You'd have to define 'poor value' For the rich maybe. For the poor,
invaluable. And that's what a decent society should be about, IMHO.

I think that it's poor value if compare with hospitals and primary
care in other countries. If I want appointments for diagnosis and
treatment in the public sector I have to wait until it suits them and
then be expected to be grateful for what I get.

You always will have to do that, unless you run your own health care system,
if yopu want an apointment on Monday the 1st and 10:30 you won't get it if
someone else has already reserved it, the problem is not enough mony is
spent (or it;s being spent in the wrong places) within the NHS.

Look at the Frinch health service, one of the best in europe (and free at
the point of use), but the French tax payer has to dig a bit deaper. If the
back room admin waste was cut away, such as the internal market, and the
runing of the hospital / wards were placed back into the hands of front line
staff (in the most) more mony would bve advailible for front line staff and
or more hospitals etc.

snip

I completely agree that a decent society should have a means of
providing healthcare for all, including the poor and vulnerable. I
was careful to say that.

No you didn't, you made a point of making it a charity, something that you
would need to be eligible for rather than a rite...

In other words, everybody should receive "money" in the form of
vouchers or equivalent to spend on healthcare and on education.

So you want yet another layer of HMG interference !

Unfortunately I do think that some method of control is needed because
there will be peoplw who given money instead would spend it on other
things and not cover themselves.

Perhaps there should just be an opt out system for people like you, if you
need health care then you ring for your private doctor, even if it's an
emergency, even to the point of not being scrapped up off the road ?


Everybody should be provided with enough voucher cover to get at least
as good a service as they get today and probably better because of
there being more providers being encouraged into the sectors.

There is, it's called the NHS, or private medical insurance.


People wishing to top up their voucher with money or insurance because
they'd like a private hospital room or an appointment at a different
time or a more suitable school should be able to do so. As it is
today, to exercise choice in education I have to pay twice and for
healthcare three times.
I'm not saying that I mind contributing to the common good, simply
that I would like a choice on what I derive from that common good and
to actually get something in return for my payments.


You do, you get a free basic service, if you choose not to use it and pay
for an alternate service then that *is* real personal choice and you are
exercising it.

I want to install a flush-mounted single mains socket in a very restricted
position, where there isn't the space for a conventional single mounting box
and its 85mm x 85mm surface plate. Does anyone make a box/plate combination
which is smaller than the standard? I've had a look at some obvious sources
but not found anything as yet.

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:06:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...

Land Value Tax is the way. No other tax except that.



Not even that.


No, the only way forward is for tax to be abolished completely, we can then
organise ourselves into groups were we could organise out own defence,
health, education systems etc. - I think they used to call them Clan's or
something the last time it was tried !

I was hoping that society was progressing, but the sicdear/sic Maggie
did say something about there being on society anymore...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:25:32 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




NO! I said "How much do you personally donate to the rich each year?"
You
are obsessed in keeping them that way. So, how much do you personally
donate
to the rich each year?

I told you already. To me, the rich are the government and the
so-called services provided by it. They are certainly the largest
owner of resources, the least accountable in real terms and the most
incompetent at managing them.

Wrong.

There is no choice of whether or not one wishes to donate, and only
limited choice on how much.

Well how much do you give to the rich?

The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.

You are right. Get rid of the royal family, Lords, ladies, and all the
rest
of the parasites, Eton, Harrow, Oxbridge and that is just for starters.


And have 'President Blair' instead, no doubt....

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm alright,
sod
you' types, the only people who would benefit form your approach are
those

That assertion does not seem to fit in with Andy's statement "...that
works well when I want it *and* still be able to contribute into a pot
for those who are not able to do so to a far more cost effective
extent than today." [my emphasis] does it?


I suggest you find out just how many 'above poverty' Americans fall through
there so called health care system before supporting a 'non free at point of
use' health care system....

It's fine if you have the means to pay for what you need, but if you haven't
it's all to easy to find yourself in a void in the system.

In article ,
Bert Coules wrote:
I want to install a flush-mounted single mains socket in a very
restricted position, where there isn't the space for a conventional
single mounting box and its 85mm x 85mm surface plate. Does anyone make
a box/plate combination which is smaller than the standard? I've had a
look at some obvious sources but not found anything as yet.

You can get unswitched round ones designed for mounting in trunking. You'd
need to fabricate some form of mounting plate.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bert Coules" wrote in message
...
I want to install a flush-mounted single mains socket in a very restricted
position, where there isn't the space for a conventional single mounting
box
and its 85mm x 85mm surface plate. Does anyone make a box/plate
combination
which is smaller than the standard? I've had a look at some obvious
sources
but not found anything as yet.


How about using a circular conduit fixture, IIRC you can get socket outlet,
although it will be un-switched. you'll be looking at about 50mm dia. Just a
thought.

Bt the way, you should have started a new tread, not bust into a (not off
topic) tread about plumbing !

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:36:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement

How about land? Open all of that up to market forces? Monopolies? Of
course they should not be in business. But land is full of them. What
is
good for the goose is good for the gander.

The expression is "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander".

Yoiu can't even get that right.


Err, he can, and you can't !

Thanks to Jerry and Dave for the suggestion of a conduit socket. The fact
that it would be unswitched doesn't matter.

Jerry,

By the way, you should have started a new thread, not bust into a (not off
topic) thread about plumbing !

That's very strange; I thought I *had* started a new thread. Many
apologies.

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:53:59 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm alright,
sod
you' types, the only people who would benefit form your approach are
those

That assertion does not seem to fit in with Andy's statement "...that
works well when I want it *and* still be able to contribute into a pot
for those who are not able to do so to a far more cost effective
extent than today." [my emphasis] does it?


I suggest you find out just how many 'above poverty' Americans fall through
there so called health care system before supporting a 'non free at point of
use' health care system....

Even countries with socialised medicine have charges at the point of
delivery - e.g. small payment for GP visits, exempted for the poorest.
AFAIK, Britain is the only country that attempts a free at the point
of delivery system. It's an outdated nonsense.




It's fine if you have the means to pay for what you need, but if you haven't
it's all to easy to find yourself in a void in the system.

Sigh.... Which is why the government should deliver healthcare by
means of vouchers available to everybody and adequate to purchase
healthcare from a variety of sources according to choice.
Those wishing to add to it can then do so without the double financial
penalties that exist today.

The point is not about the government making provision for healthcare
cover for everybody, but being involved in the delivery of the actual
services. In other words, government should make the financial but
not the delivery arrangements.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Bert Coules wrote:
I want to install a flush-mounted single mains socket in a very
restricted position, where there isn't the space for a conventional
single mounting box and its 85mm x 85mm surface plate. Does anyone make
a box/plate combination which is smaller than the standard? I've had a
look at some obvious sources but not found anything as yet.

You can get unswitched round ones designed for mounting in trunking.
You'd need to fabricate some form of mounting plate.

They need a 2" mounting hole (unless they've changed since
I last bought some a long time ago.) MK part is 735WHI.
The plugs themselves overhang the sides so they won't be
a lot of use if the plug has to go in an equally narrow
space as you won't be able to get you fingers on it to
pull it out.

MK also do a smaller surface mounting socket, 74x64mm.
I suppose you could sink the surface mounting box into
the wall, or make up a appropriate one some other way.

Does the socket have to be a 13A one?
For lighting, there are the 6A Klik architrave sockets,
but that obviously can't come straight off a ring circuit,
and isn't going to be suitable as a general purpose
socket.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:33:44 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits,

No, all you are doing is creating yet another bureaucratic machine, how can
you swap providers other than laying new pipe ?!


It's perfectly simple. There is competition in the electricity and
gas supply industries which is achieved perfectly well without the
need for additional cable and pipework infrastucture.

THe same principle can be applied to water supply and waste disposal.

Wast disposal credits are already a traded commodity so there is no
reason why the same principles used there could not be used as the
vehicle for water supply and waste disposal.

Competition is more than who you pay money to.


It is also the ability of your immediate supplier to negotiate the
most favourable transport arrangements with the infrastructure and
production owners. This can be achieved by introducing competition
at the point of sale to the consumer.


With electricity and gas the generating and
supply capacity is from a limited range of sources, and delivery
mechanisms but these are separated from the consumer and he can choose
between different retail suppliers.

He can chose to pay somone differnt for his electricity, the electricity
still comes from the same source company(s) and is carried by the same power
lines.

Competition is more than who you pay money to.

It is also the ability of the retail supplier to negotiate the best
deal he can get from the infrastructure owners and commodity
suppliers. This is achieved by commercial ability on the part of the
retail supplier including running a low cost and efficient
administration. The element of competition here has made a big
improvement to consumer cost.



Exactly the same can be done for
disposal.


Not when you HAVE to use the services that already exist.

Of course it can. There are multiple elements to utility
businesses. In some it is practical and desirable to introduce
competition, in others it is not practical.

You need to think outside the box.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:14:14 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:




That is the trouble with public services being run as a profit making,
dividend paying company, there will always be a conflict between what should
be done and what is done - just as with any true private company, but in
those companies the customers have *real* choice, not just imaginary choice.

No, youi've missed the point. Competition introduces choice for the
consumer and the profit motive and reward for shareholders mean that
the service offering has to be run to the satisfaction of the
customers. If there is poor service, they buy elsewhere. This is a
far more effective way of delivering services than having an
incompetent state megalith operating them.

You also have the opportunity of being an investor in any of the
private service providers who are publicly quoted.




I have no problem in what level service is given by the ISP, there is
genuine choice available, but I do have a problem with the delivery system
were many have no choice what so ever - you either use BT wires or you don't
use the service who ever the ISP (or phone) supplier is.

That situation is changing with local loop unbundling. BT will
still provide the wires but the user's contract will be with the ISP
and not as it is today with two contracts.




and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
God forgive him as he knows not what he does.

He seems wants it like the USA, were those with money have the best care,
those below poverty get charity and those who are neither fail into a void -
and there are plenty in that last group, there health often getting worse
until they are either in poverty or have to be registered as disabled and
thus get Medicare.

I haven't said that at all, so please don't put words in my mouth.
What I actually said was that the government should provide everybody
with a financial means to purchase healthcare to at least the current
level. Inevitably this means that higher income earners will pay
more into the central tax fund to support it than lower income
earners. This is quite different to the US where government
delivered support is effectively means or disability tested.

My two arguments are a) that the government should not be in the
service *delivery* business - i.e. should not be in the hospital
business; and b) that those wishing to take their healthcare
entitlement and add to it via money or insurance can do so (today the
state piece is lost) and without tax and NIC penalty on top as it is
today.

That is all quite different to the US arrangement.



I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

But in the 'service' sector such as water, energy and to a great extent
telecoms there is no real choice, only who you pay the bill to - that is not
genuine choice.

THere are many pieces to a utility business. If one can put
competition into some of the parts it is infinitely better than
operating it under state control.




With water and drugs you don't.

The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

NO. the problems are because it is in profit making greedy hands.

I have no problem with dividends or bonus payments, but only after the
system is working 110 percent, until then those in charge have failed there
prime duty (and anyone who argues that dividends / bonuses are the prime
function of a [public] service company shows their true colours IMO).

It seems that you don't understand the dynamics of a private sector
service business. If there is a profit element as one piece of it,
the business is driven to achieve that. Ultimately the way that that
happens is giving good service so that people come again and recommend
to their friends. These elements are missing from a state run
operation where there are only service targets and no competition.
There is no incentive to perform or improve.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:18:10 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:18:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Yep. Private monopolies should not be. If a service is nationwide then
it
should be ruin by the gov.

It almost always is........


No it is not, what sector is British gas in, what sector are the energy
companies in, what sector is the telecoms in, what sector is the waste water
services in, what sector is the water supply services in... The list could
go on.

I was picking up on nationally operated services being *ruined* by
government control.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl