Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Greek - Stand by your statement, he really isn't worth the bother. Cheers Chris :O)

Fred,

I had no augment in paying 11% from my salary and yes the employer contribution was generous. Due to the general population living longer, it is only fair that contributions to all pensions should be paid longer, but as for a Police Officer working the streets at plus 55, it is a no go. I always stayed fairly fit (my nickname was Road Runner) but even at the age of 45, I found the yobs were harder to chase and even harder to arrest if they resisted.
I do agree though that many officers are unfit and over weight.

Greek.

I found some yobs a bit harder, but!

Pensions in some areas of employment were set up as an inducement to get tje "workers".

Ie. low paid Public service areas.

Just asking, if you are not fit enough at 50 to apprehend a 17 year with a grudge. would you be fit enough with "rests" to work as a labourer underground, steel works or areas of heavy engineering.

Those areas are still there.

Not attacking you, but having experienced those areas very happy to have escaped them.

I am trying to point out the complexity of "Fair" policies.

I am glad that as a youth that during vacations I was exposed to many areas of industry and experiences of the "lower" classes.

Also, remember the humour of "Rhondda Grey".

Fred,

Nowhere did I mention that at 50 you are not fit enough to apprehend a yob, although it is increasingly far more difficult as you get older. What I said was, "As to working to 67, I feel that this could not be possible as a front line officer for obvious reasons".
Many physical jobs do not involve chasing after people and tackling them. You can slow down in most physical jobs with not much effect. You slow down as a Police Officer, the bad guys get away more, which is serious, plus you end up with more assault related injuries.

Winston Churchill: I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

Winnie, was just an old lefty at heart!

.

Can anybody inform me of the costs of 500,000 more unemployed and their dependants to the state?

Also, why is it legitimate to buy a house on a 25year mortgage is it so inappropriate to do the same with the upgrading, building of schools and hospitals. universities, plant etc.. which was neglected by previous administrations.

Strange how there is still money for the tory icons of Academies.

The cuts and method of introduction stink of ideology.


Or perhaps, that money will be spent on holiday homes in the Cayman Islands.

US pundit PJ ORourke put it: If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when its free.

Unit costs should go down.

Winston also said, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".
If he were still alive today he could have shortened it to fit the present financial crisis, "Never was so much owed by so many"

Fred,

You ask, 'Can anybody inform me of the costs of 500,000 more unemployed and their dependents to the state'
Well it won't cost as much as paying them a wage from the national purse. It's simple economics.
As to the mortgage question, the Labor Government Schools/hospitals program was at a far higher interest rate than your average house mortgage.

Also house mortgages are taken out mainly due to the fact that most people can not put down such a huge amount in one lump sum, whereas the Labour Government (who before the schools purchase program used to) took this route so that any cost would not show up in the accounts, and therefor not be shown as a debt on the governments books. Another accounting fiddle.
Also if you peruse the official figures, which have been independently prepared show on average that the cost of rebuilding a school under BSF was three times more expensive than an equivalent commercial project.
Labour have conceded this, but unbelievable still say it was the best way to go.

Some further figures.
The process of applying for BSF investment was so fiendishly complex that, collectively, Englands local authorities spent an estimated 250 million on preparing their bids, with 60 million being spent on consultancy or advisory costs. Thats 250 million just to fill in the forms, so plentiful was the red tape.
Some councils which entered the process six years ago have only just started building new schools. Another project starting this year is three years behind schedule.

I have no problem continuing this debate, but only if you can show my figures are wrong. If you can't it is an open and shut case of Labour Government waste.

And I bet most of those 500,000 jobs weren't there 13 years ago when Labour took over the reins.

Well said, Seymour.
That has been one of the biggest problems under Labour, too many jobs that were dependent on being paid by the state, IE us.

"Also if you peruse the official figures, which have been independently prepared show on average that the cost of rebuilding a school under BSF was three times more expensive than an equivalent commercial project.

Labour have conceded this, but unbelievable still say it was the best way to go."


Does that mean we were ripped off by the private centre.


Still would like to know cost of the extra 500,000 unemployed.

Fred,

Sorry can't continue with this, not when you ask, 'Does that mean we were ripped off by the private centre'.
Surely you must know that the figures were agreed by both parties before contracts were signed, or do you believe that the Labour Government went in blind.
If they were ripped off, it can only be their (Labours) fault.
I rest my case.

Greek.

Agreed, that the previous government was "gullible" on occasions.

However, it would seem that you are advocating that, if one party, through ignorance, agrees to a contract, (ie. gullible or conned), it is reasonable for the other party that they take the advantage of the others gullibility.

If this is acceptable, then it seems to me a strange morality and one of the problems with a capitalist market economy, which is not subject to restraints. It relies and stupidity and not a social conscience.

It could mean that I shouldnt feel guilty, when I persuade my grand children's to purchase the sweets from me at inflated prices. Or, even to deceive others, in similar manners.

I think it would be reasonable, in the cases you described, to have a claw back clause.

But, because something is legal, it does not mean it is moral.
I have more respect for the latter.

One of the least attractive features of the Maggie period, was the major moral emphasis on advantaging oneself at the expense of others. This morality is still prevalent in the present tory leadership.


---------------

Have a nice day.

Now where are those sweets, I have just had another idea.

Fred is a complete idiot I pressed the squelch button to get that moron out of my life long ago.

Yes the only people whose standard of living is on the up are these who have made a lifestyle choice not to work and instead sponge on the rest of us. All benefits for the unemployed should be rebased at a level of around 2/3 their present level.

Fred

Your blinkers still firmly in position i see.

You do seem to be incredibly naive. I think you just like winding people up.

Fred,

Your comments are utterly ridiculous. How you can read that into my post is, well pathetic. So debate finished on my part.