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.

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?

Mnamreh,

Your statement, 'if you have the time for such self-analysis'.

Quite right. I do have time, but I don't do that anymore, as every time in the past that I have self-analyzed, it frightened me so much, I changed to self-delusion. I find that far better.

As to beliefs being challenged, that I have never minded, but only if those challengers try to show that I am wrong, without totally twisting things I have said. If Fed can show me that facts/figures I quoted were wrong then fine, but I will not get into a prolonged debate when the other person tries to use in said debate statements or/and points I have not even hinted at, which Fred has done, as I see no point in doing so whatsoever.

But I like you, do not have a problem with him posting, as he is never personally insulting or uses foul language. It is his prerogative to post, but I may ignore him in the future though, which is of course my prerogative.

Note....As to who screws who, I strongly believe that almost everybody, both public and private sectors are out to screw everybody equally. My view on mankind as a whole is very low. But on dealing mainly with the lower end of humanity for 25 plus years, I except I am probably giving a very slanted view.

regards Greek.

And fernackapan knows less and less about more and more.
That's why I squelched him months ago.
My blood pressure is much better now.

.

Raw,

Relating to :

Is it not the 'held' position that the private sector always shafts the public sector when it comes to business/money?

This may be the position held by some of society.

Personally, I think some of the Private sector, are prepared to shaft the public sector as some are prepared to shaft their own family, or friends, when it seems opportune to do so. Others have a more principled attitude in their relationship.

From previous ramblings, on other threads, I believe I have written that I worked for various companies in the 50-70s and admired the management of some companies and the industrial relationships within those private companies.

Also, have experience of public services and despaired at the qualities of management and sometimes the stupidity of the Unions, or at least their leaders.

Much of what the public services and wealth-fare services provide is good, and the private business benefit from the research facilitated by them.

Much efficiency, in some areas could be beneficially improved. However, there is something to be said for a level inefficiency as long as it is not to obvious. (Wont develop this.)

My father ran a successful business before it was nationalised in the 40s and continued to run it profitably afterwards in the public sector. Although, the nationalisation at the time was detrimental to him, he thought it was beneficial for those he employed and more than content by that. (Not advocating Nationalisation of Industry, but there is sometimes a virtue to size.)

Also, although I mainly worked in the public services area, I flirted with earnings from the private area and saw no real emotional conflict in doing so.

Again, many of my friends or associates were private businessmen and women either running, owning, or a few on the boards of large companies.

In general, I thought they were respectful of their own and their employees needs.

I dont think that I am biased against the private sector, but do see that there are more villains in that area than the public area.

What I have come to appreciate more and more, are the complexities of government and its reliance on appearing to be leading the public while actually being led by it.

Sometimes, I find that in order to implement a simple idea, a very devious and torturous route has to be followed.

Decision making is easy, implementation is the bugger.

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

Taxation.

You cant take it with you and mostly, it is nice to see how it is used.

=====

Just another thought.

Perhaps, half, or, at least a large percentage of what is produced by the private centre, is of little value to and of no benefit to society.

Are they deliberately production of waste and inefficiency and should they be thrown out on the scrap heap?