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.

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.

.

nm - altough I am open to all opinions, fred seems to have a knack of passing off statements as fact when he has no proof and then ignoring/mocking those posts contrary to his own.

Why is it that fred only considers the private sector to blame for the bsf cost increases. The public sectors is at least equally, if not more, to blame for these contracts for a multitude of innocent and not so innocent reasons.

edit - wrong thread!

.

mnamreh - Not to put to fine a point on it .... BOLLOCKS! Fred would do well to stick to the subjects he knows best, if indeed they exist. The Police Service is most certainly not one of them! I stand by assessment he is a DICKHEAD end of :O)

NM.

Thank you.

TIM, I thought would have imploded by now.

Raw and sometimes Greek.

I think if you re-read my postings you will find as a rule I am challenging "held" positions, not the right of individuals to hold those positions.

Many of those challenges are often made of myself.

My own positioning on certain issues I find are often based on sand and deserve challenging.

Being aware of my flimsy foundation of "beliefs", does not make frightened to challenge the validity of them.

I don't think I have ever written that others should have my "values", beliefs, or concepts, or denigrated them for not doing so.

What I would like in general is a society with more tolerance of the weakness of others.

Ie. showing more respect for the individuality and rights of other as long they don't impede the rights of the rest of society


However, if somebody makes a personal and public insult about me. I find it interesting to respond in the same vein. I dislike bullies.

.

Fred, 'I am challenging "held" positions'. Is it not the 'held' position that the private sector always shafts the public sector when it comes to business/money? In that case you are agreeing with the 'held' position, not challenging it. Maybe you should question how/why the private sector keeps on getting away with this behaviour.

By the way, hello again, long time no argument. I won't be getting into a long struggle with you, just don't like the way you consider it all to be the private sectors fault.

Is is not the case that the public sector continually shafts business by over taxing whilst wasting that money employing the pen pushers who restrict growth by fabricating more and more red tape?