Speedfit technique

[IMM]

manufacturers

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?

[John Rumm]

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" on a piece of paper, and place it where you can see it. Make sure you read it several times a day. It will make you a better problem solver and far less objectionable.

[John Rumm]

Yup, he is made from orange plastic.... his next question: "Now spell colour"

[Andy Hall]

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.

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

The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.

[:::Jerry::::]

[ re the British tax system ]

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

[Andy Hall]

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. 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.,

In the 21st century we don't need universal state run healthcare operated on a flawed 1940s model and an educational experiment that should have ended a generation ago.

I'm completely certain that with the money that I fork over to national and local government in various forms of tax, that I could buy a vastly superior set of services to the various state operations 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.

[:::Jerry::::]

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 running the (presumably) private service companies - 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.

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.

[Frank Erskine]

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.

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".

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.

[Andy Hall]

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

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.

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.

[:::Jerry::::]

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

[John Rumm]

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?

[IMM]

Do you speak as badly as you think?

[IMM]

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

[IMM]

Wrong.

Well how much do you give to the rich?

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.

[IMM]

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

[IMM]

< snip inane babble by a deranged mind >

[Andy Hall]

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 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.

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

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.

[IMM]

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

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.

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.

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

[IMM]

He did and he is right.

< snip disjointed babble >

[Andy Hall]

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.

.