Marmora Man

Hugenot - you always get very het up it when others, allegedly, put words into your mouth. You have put words in mine; I challenge you to find my "well established anti-European position" - because I damned if I can remember ever posting one. I might have, in passing, made comments about the illogicality of the creation of a common currency before securing common fiscal polices but I am most definitely not an Anti European.

Time to close this thread - it's like listening to two drunks arguing too late into the night after a boozy Christmas office party - and is getting boring. There is a healthy debate to be held on the subject but batting tennis ball facts, figures and insults back and forth is not adding to the sum of human knowledge.

Today Nick Clegg and assorted Lib Dems attacked Conservative proposals to recognise marriage by giving married couples certain tax breaks. Research certainly seems to support the proposition that, at a macro level, marriage is a better way to bring up children - providing greater stability, improved educational outcomes, reduced demand on social services, less likelihood of children developing depression, becoming dependent on drugs or alcohol and a reduced likelihood of teenage pregnancy. Of course we all know happy and stable couples, with succesful and happy, well adjusted children that are not married. Clegg has said: 1. "There is a limit on what the state should seek to do in organising people's private lives" 2. "I do not think that offering people 20 quid back would make much difference to people's decisions" Only a Lib Dem could utter two such contradictory statements in one discussion. On point 1 - the state interferes in people's lives every day and at many levels, generally for the greater good - sometimes to placate accepted opinions. Areas such as: * Speed limits * Carbon taxes * Laws making burglary, violence, rape & murder illegal * Smoking bans * Licensing requirements for music * Planning laws * Seat belt laws * Motor cycle helmet laws and we could all add to this list. QUESTION: Is using the tax system to encourage and applaud mariage a reasonable political decision? I would answer yes - despite my libertarian instincts. The proposal does not make marriage compulsory, so freedom of choice remains, yet it adopts the "nudge" theory to gently persuade people to adopt a way of life that reduces, at a macro level, the cost of broken homes to society.

As I understand it such arrangements used to be relatively common in Eire. My father always remembered fondly entering such an establishment in Connemara - combined grocers, post office and pub at around 10.30. He asked for a drink but was told the pub side wasn't open yet and didn't open until 11.00, the proprietor then said "but would you like a drink while you wait"? - which struck my father as a very civilised arrangement.

Perhaps they are intelligent enough to see the wider strayegic picture?

Woodrot - you have clearly spent very little time researching today's military services. Your caricature might, just, have held up in Wellington's army 200 years ago but not today. Your post reeks of inverted snobbery and ill educated socialist worker thinking. Discuss.

A really good veggie starter is to make heaps of pancakes, layer them up into a cake with different veggies - some of the following work well: cooked wild mushrooms, caramelised onions, roast aubergene, fried courgettes (or grated courgette cooked in butter with chilli flakes, cooked spinach, make a separate pouring cheese sauce - cut wedges of the pancake cake and serve sauce separately. I'm a huge carnivore but I do like this dish.

Hal9000 - What utter tosh. Worthy only of ignoring and warning friends to avoid your ranting.

Expect some serrious Hugenot psoturing follwoing this morning's news.

Ridgley: The Drawing Room is I quote "a place for discussion about serious issues and current affairs, moderated by a chairperson". I don't think your OP meets the criteria - perhaps in the Lounge, but even then it's a passing comment of no discernible value and no insight.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not just the public sector. The difference in > private sector pay often does not reflect regional > living expenses either - including skilled jobs > which are not in competition with the public > sector. Some examples to back up this assertion would be helpful.

And they are wrong as this, inevitably, means an inequitable distribution of lifestyle. Two typical "squeezed middle" families that work in the public sector and benefiting, as you would no doubt argue, from collective bargaining and national salary banding, let's say a schoolteacher and a nurse, will have dramatically different lifestyles and choices depending upon where they actually live and work. In Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow, Cornwall, and other similar areas they can afford a pleasant house, probably run two cars, have a nice holiday every year and treat their children well at Christmas. The same couple, on the same income, living in Guildford, London, St Albans, Oxford or Cambridge will struggle to raise enough to buy a modest home, maybe run two bicycles, take a camping holiday every other year and worry whether they can afford to buy their children Christmas presents except at a charity shop. Neither couple would be classed as poor - bout relative to their neighbours the couple in the Guilford et al will feel poorer and the couple in Newcastle et all will be envied by their neighbours for their comfortable lifestyle. So - in today's economic climate do you pay the Guildford couple more - or the Newcastle couple less? I'd argue for the latter - as at present in Newcastle, Liverpool and similar places to work in the public sector is to have won a small lottery. High public salaries & wages disincentivise those that might otherwise work in the private sector and making it difficult for private sector employers to compete for good staff and thus reluctant to invest in the area without a heavy tax payer subsidy. Adjusting public sector wages to local comparators should, in the long run, allow for greater private sector investment in the "deprived" areas - reducing unemployment and reliance upon public sector largesse. In the long run also it would reduce the disparity between the different areas - so that gradually regional pay levels would equalise or become much closer.

Is there anywhere, in or within relatively easy reach of ED, that provide a truly great Brunch? Bloody Marys, Eggs Benedict, bacon sarnies, fresh fruit salads, quiet & relaxed jazz in the background, soft lighting - to help friends generally enter the New Year with style and assuage any post New Year's Eve hangover?

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In 2007-08 = the most recent year for which > figures are available - private-sector pension > relief cost the taxpayer ?37.6 billion. During the > same period, the net cost of public sector > pensions was ?4 billion. Chippy, the report you quote contradicts your statement. The report has public sector pensions costing ?25bn, which you assert cost ?4bn. If one's not true - then how can I rely upon the other? Additionally, taxes not levied cannot be described as a subsidy, except by the economically illiterate. If your argument were to stand up this would mean any tax rate at less than 100% would represent a subsidy from government. That way lies madness. Of course tax relief on pension payments is simply tax deferred. If I put ?1,000 into a pension fund and obtain tax relief on that sum NOW, I will nevertheless eventually pay tax on the pension it produces. If the money I put away into my pension fund is taxed NOW then this has a number of consequences: 1. I cannot afford to put aside as much for my future 2. I will obtain a lower pension in the future 3. With a lower pension I may be more dependent upon future taxpayers to subsidise pension benefits 4. As my future pension will taxed my money will have been taxed twice.

I can see that a rational argument can be made for ever greater European integration, I don't fully agree with the argument but it has legs and is worthy of debate - but defending the Euro because this long term political aim is up for discussion shows poor logic. Financial / currency integration must follow not precede political integration - otherwise you end up in the mess that the Euro is in.

Taper - wrong, wrong, wrong. Public sector pensions, as currently formulated, are simply unaffordable for the country. That is the core of the problem. Until you, and the many public sector unions, begin to understand this you'll never comprehend the frustrations of the tax paying public which you expect to spend more on you and your colleagues than they can afford to spend on themselves.

On Tuesday the chancellor announced a review into regional pay for public sector employees. Due to national pay bargaining in the public sector local public sector wages do not take into account the lower cost of living across the country - for example, a nurse, doctor, schoolteacher or a civil servant can live well in the north east where the lower cost of housing, rates and other factors make life more affordable. This leads to inequalities in key areas where public sector wages are so attractive other employers find it uneconomical to recruit - leading to a dearth of private sector employment and an over reliance upon the public sector. cf: Scotland, the North East, Liverpool and other similar areas. What does this house think?

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 80 plus hours work and 60 plus posts on EDF this > week. > > >:D > 80 hours a week = 16 hour working days without > lunch, based on a five day week. > > No doubt he'll say he doesn't do a five day week, > but even based on a seven day week it is nearly a > 12 hour day without lunch everyday. > > What with all the 4od and physical demands such as > taking on food and water, then sleeping, I'm sure > he must have to sacrifice taking a dump so he can > fit in his 60+ posts on the EDF ;-) Chippy - have you ever tried to run your own business? Do you have any idea how it feels to have responsibility for the livelihoods of a number of employees? You worry at it all week, start work at 7.00am and finish after 9.00pm every day - then go home and worry some more. You spend weekends marketing, or sorting out stock problems, preparing accounts for audit, analysing to see where costs can be trimmed and prices made more competitive. You take Sunday mornings to complete the myriad of paperwork returns that are government imposed - and ponder on whether you can afford to take on a new member of staff in these recessionary times, particularly when you have to guarantee them maternity leave, paternity leave, pay for their holidays even if they're a contract worker. I would be very surprised if any owner / manager of any business larger than a one man band finds themselves doing less than Hugenot's 80 hours a week.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think some of the decisions that have to be > taken in the public sector, by their very nature, > are not going to be quick ones no matter how much > we'd like them to be. I don't think so - my experience is that they are simply culturally unable to make decisions without endless delay and, usually, delegation upwards to the most senior person available. I'll illustrate my view with a tale of a current deal I'm working on. 5 weeks ago on a Monday the hospital I am temporarily running was asked to quote, as a matter or urgency, to carry out 100 "neuro spine" procedures to be carried asap for the local NHS Trust that was approaching the 18 week waiting time limit for these 100 patients. This work was a follow on from very similar neuro procedures carried out satisfactorily earlier in the year, so there was no question about quality or performance. I gathered the theatre manager, finance manager and operations manager together that afternoon. In the course of 45 minutes we reviewed pricing, theatre & bed capacity, process and identified five surgeons that might work with us to undertake the procedures. By 8.00am the next day we had agreed internally that we could undertake the work, that the surgeons would work with us and fixed on a price - somewhat less than the going NHS Tariff rate. We accordingly informed the local Trust by midday - approximately 26 hours after the initial enquiry, and about 9 working hours after the initial enquiry. Yesterday - 5 weeks and 4 days after the initial enquiry, 5 weeks and 3 days after the Trust received confirmation of capacity, readiness and a competitive quote from us the Trust has asked to meet next week to discuss how we might quote "proceed with the work". As Hugenot might say "WTF" - we've been waiting nearly 6 weeks to start, they want to delay another week to discuss it. Another four letter acronym is "JFDI" and I wish the NHS had that capability and I'm sure the 100 patients who have been waiting for an unnecessary 6 weeks would agree.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's an offaly good idea. Devilled kidneys A brilliant dish, more popularly in the messes of the Royal Navy, where it is eaten with gusto for breakfast, as "Shit on a raft"

PW - have you ever worked in the private sector? I have worked in both. You'll find many if the same frustrations, extended hours and foreshortened lunch breaks and less than perfect IT that you appear to believe are unique to the noble public sector worker. What you would also find is an understanding that the private enterprise depends upon satisfying the customer / client, a fierce concentration on value for money. You will also find less time devoted to committee meetings, less stultifying paperwork & bureaucracy (except that generated for government agencies), short and effective appraisals and swift decision making. If just some of these attributes could be grafted onto public sector management thinking and style - your life could become a lot better and taxpayers saved a lot of money.

All necessary and important tasks. However, many of them are also provided by private providers (most of the healthcare aspects), many are delivered only with the support and assistance of private providers (law & justice, social care), many are part paid for through charitable support. The public sector is not alone in the roles you describe. A few points: The list you provided seems to imply that the public sector is, somehow separate doing "stuff" for the other part of society - you know this is not the case. EG: "We deliver your babies, fight your fires, hold your hand etc" The public sector is part of UK society and provides services to all of UK society. It should not be shielded from the economic realities of UK life. In my experience the healthcare element of your list could be a lot more effective and deliver very much more, more efficiently with less if it were better managed. I expect the same could be said of many other public services. Your list of public services is, of course, funded by taxation. This is not, and cannot, be a bottomless pit. The taxpayer has every right to expect efficiency and value for money. A major element of the cost of public services is the ponzi scheme that is the current public sector pension arrangement. The unions, and their members, have developed the slogan (or whinge) "we'll have to work longer, pay more and get less pension" under the new proposals. Absolutely right - so will I and all your neighbours that are not in the public sector. This is the inevitable result of demographic changes, the recession, and pressures on government spending. Your emotional call to arms does not change the economic facts of life. I can see no reason why the UK taxpayer should provide exceptional benefits to a nurse, social worker or a civil servant. Benefits such as a higher, average salary than the private sector, from a reduced working life and from an enhanced pension. Benefits that the average private sector employee does not enjoy and cannot afford. edited for spelling

No I didn't! (this sounds like a pantomime). In response to D-C's bizarre claim that the Conservative Party was engaged in a "war on the public sector" my exact words were "I might have described G Brown's expansion of the public sector and tax hikes in much of the last decade as "war on the private sector" but I refrained".

Don't know how it is in London - but in Leeds where I'm working on an assignment at present the picket line outside the adjacent NHS Trust had two people at 8.00am this morning and none at 1.00pm. A few discarded posters markesthe spot but across the city it all seems rather apathetic, tho' maybe somewhere there's a big crowd shouting the odds.

It is possible to argue the reverse tho'. The Eurozone can be seen as a reckless example of a big spending, bureaucratically overweening big state - and it certainly doesn't look like a success. My preferred alternative might, perhaps, be better?