Why do Edinburgh residents keep voting in the same useless bastards every
time, look at the state of Edinburgh's roads, the pointless revisions that
keep being made every couple of years for absolutely no benefit to anyone.
THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do think before I vote,I remember when we had a useless tory council
run by corrupt builders and people who gave golden putters to South
African golfers.

is it just about roads then?
The roads seem ok to me,they seem to do their job since Jeremy Clarkson
fans like you keep driving on them.
I should say I am a non driver with a bus pass and a pair of working
legs.
Parts of the latest road changes are a mess but people who say there
should be no change are not living in the real world.
Sarte said hell was other people but for the motorist traffic is other
people,the traffic jams are always somebodyelse's fault.
The Tories are trying to be the pro car, pro motorist party but many
drivers don't want to be drivers,they feel, often wrongly,that they
have no choice.
Everytime they do surveys people who do not use public transport
underestimate the speed and frequency of public transport.
In general I support the council's transport policies (transport is not
just roads),the bus service is good for most areas of the city.
I think it mad that they say that bikes are a solution for all but a
minority of people.
I think the tram issue has been poorly planned and very poorly
presented.
If we need trams they need to sell the case better,they undersell the
quality of the local bus service and their support for local rail
services.

Edinburgh council is not perfect of course,but I have lived in
Edinburgh for all of my 45 years and the city has been transformed from
the narrow minded staid bible thumping place it was in the early 1970s.
Edinburgh's economic success,and its world wide positive image ,is
something to be proud of.
There are stil too many poor areas of course and too many kids at
school do not get a good  worthwhile education.
I would slate the poor performance of the cleansing department
however,street cleaning is carried to the same standard citywide and
the refuse collection does not always happen on the day it should.
My contacts with the council,to complain about various problems,have
been much more positive over recent years but staff attitude is
sometimes still a problem.
But Glasgow council is worse it seems,it requires more people in
Glasgow to do a worse job than in Edinburgh it seems.

Ah!  I see that Steve Cardownie has joined this newsgroup!



"neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
news:djlseh$4t9$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> Why do Edinburgh residents keep voting in the same useless bastards every
> time, look at the state of Edinburgh's roads, the pointless revisions that
> keep being made every couple of years for absolutely no benefit to anyone.
> THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> 

Ah!  I see that Steve Cardownie has joined this newsgroup!



"neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
news:djlseh$4t9$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> Why do Edinburgh residents keep voting in the same useless bastards every
> time, look at the state of Edinburgh's roads, the pointless revisions that
> keep being made every couple of years for absolutely no benefit to anyone.
> THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> 

no,I am a Hibs fan and a Labour voter,but I have met the man and think
that Stevie is a good guy even if he has retired from politics and
joined the SNP.
When he left the SWP (now trading under the name SSP) for Labour 20
years ago people called him a careerist,now I suppose he is an anti
careerist.
It is easy to attack the council,but I am glad they are not the brain
dead machine politicians of many labour councils and I am also glad
that they are not tories or nationalists.

Does everybody accept  Cardownie's reasons for changing parties ?,or is
there a story here we don't know yet ?.
Does his council seat not cover the FORT area? ,he has said nothing
about the poor kid whose mother died,unless I missed it.
Anybody got any info ?

yadda yadda yadda you talk pish.

 wrote in message
news:1130266965.691530.25800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> I do think before I vote,I remember when we had a useless tory council
> run by corrupt builders and people who gave golden putters to South
> African golfers.
>
> is it just about roads then?
> The roads seem ok to me,they seem to do their job since Jeremy Clarkson
> fans like you keep driving on them.
> I should say I am a non driver with a bus pass and a pair of working
> legs.
> Parts of the latest road changes are a mess but people who say there
> should be no change are not living in the real world.
> Sarte said hell was other people but for the motorist traffic is other
> people,the traffic jams are always somebodyelse's fault.
> The Tories are trying to be the pro car, pro motorist party but many
> drivers don't want to be drivers,they feel, often wrongly,that they
> have no choice.
> Everytime they do surveys people who do not use public transport
> underestimate the speed and frequency of public transport.
> In general I support the council's transport policies (transport is not
> just roads),the bus service is good for most areas of the city.
> I think it mad that they say that bikes are a solution for all but a
> minority of people.
> I think the tram issue has been poorly planned and very poorly
> presented.
> If we need trams they need to sell the case better,they undersell the
> quality of the local bus service and their support for local rail
> services.
>
> Edinburgh council is not perfect of course,but I have lived in
> Edinburgh for all of my 45 years and the city has been transformed from
> the narrow minded staid bible thumping place it was in the early 1970s.
> Edinburgh's economic success,and its world wide positive image ,is
> something to be proud of.
> There are stil too many poor areas of course and too many kids at
> school do not get a good  worthwhile education.
> I would slate the poor performance of the cleansing department
> however,street cleaning is carried to the same standard citywide and
> the refuse collection does not always happen on the day it should.
> My contacts with the council,to complain about various problems,have
> been much more positive over recent years but staff attitude is
> sometimes still a problem.
> But Glasgow council is worse it seems,it requires more people in
> Glasgow to do a worse job than in Edinburgh it seems.
>

sorry your argument is a little too complicated for me to understand.

wrote in message
news:1130278862.995074.254170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> sorry your argument is a little too complicated for me to understand.
>


I thought it might be.

> Everytime they do surveys people who do not use public transport
> underestimate the speed and frequency of public transport.
> In general I support the council's transport policies (transport is not
> just roads),the bus service is good for most areas of the city.


Totally - I work in a large building near Crewe Toll (not the one that
makes missiles!) and our employer did a survey a few years back about
travelling to work.  Around 80% of the employees came from Edinburgh,
and 90% of those drove to work.  The survey asked if public transport
was better would they switch and the vast majority said no.

I knew of people who drove from Comely Bank (15 mins walk?), and one
person even drove in from North Werber Pl (about 250 yds down the road)
and there's a bloke here now who drives his Audi TT in from Inverleith!

Most people who work here who live in Edinburgh and drive either think
buses are full of 'schemies' (their words) with colds etc or think
having to change buses in the city centre is too much hassle

neutron (abcde) wrote:

> yadda yadda yadda you talk pish.


Pish or otherwise, he's the one who's smiling (a bit) cos he's maybe
happy with some aspects of the council's performance while you're the
one getting het up nd without enough imagination to do anything more
about it than post your wee rants usenet, then sling chilidish insults
at anyone who dares to take a contrary view.   I know who I'm laughing
at.

On 25 Oct 2005 12:02:45 -0700 someone who may be
ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk wrote this:-


>I do think before I vote,I remember when we had a useless tory council
>run by corrupt builders and people who gave golden putters to South
>African golfers.


And one of the reasons that the public elected the Labour lot was
that they promised to cancel the Western Approach Road, which they
did.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

wrote in message
news:1130312490.593992.6960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > Everytime they do surveys people who do not use public transport
> > underestimate the speed and frequency of public transport.
> > In general I support the council's transport policies (transport is not
> > just roads),the bus service is good for most areas of the city.
>
> Totally - I work in a large building near Crewe Toll (not the one that
> makes missiles!) and our employer did a survey a few years back about
> travelling to work.  Around 80% of the employees came from Edinburgh,
> and 90% of those drove to work.  The survey asked if public transport
> was better would they switch and the vast majority said no.
>
> I knew of people who drove from Comely Bank (15 mins walk?), and one
> person even drove in from North Werber Pl (about 250 yds down the road)
> and there's a bloke here now who drives his Audi TT in from Inverleith!
>
> Most people who work here who live in Edinburgh and drive either think
> buses are full of 'schemies' (their words) with colds etc or think
> having to change buses in the city centre is too much hassle
>


In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving when
they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about more
than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's going
out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and events.
Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make their
mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on whatever
takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:r17vl1hvhsn4ej0fij2kf13undc266jjos@4ax.com...

> On 25 Oct 2005 12:02:45 -0700 someone who may be
> ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk wrote this:-
>
> >I do think before I vote,I remember when we had a useless tory council
> >run by corrupt builders and people who gave golden putters to South
> >African golfers.
>
> And one of the reasons that the public elected the Labour lot was
> that they promised to cancel the Western Approach Road, which they
> did.


Yeah right, that's why they got elected...

yadda yadda yadda you talk pish.

 wrote in message
news:1130266965.691530.25800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> I do think before I vote,I remember when we had a useless tory council
> run by corrupt builders and people who gave golden putters to South
> African golfers.
>
> is it just about roads then?
> The roads seem ok to me,they seem to do their job since Jeremy Clarkson
> fans like you keep driving on them.
> I should say I am a non driver with a bus pass and a pair of working
> legs.
> Parts of the latest road changes are a mess but people who say there
> should be no change are not living in the real world.
> Sarte said hell was other people but for the motorist traffic is other
> people,the traffic jams are always somebodyelse's fault.
> The Tories are trying to be the pro car, pro motorist party but many
> drivers don't want to be drivers,they feel, often wrongly,that they
> have no choice.
> Everytime they do surveys people who do not use public transport
> underestimate the speed and frequency of public transport.
> In general I support the council's transport policies (transport is not
> just roads),the bus service is good for most areas of the city.
> I think it mad that they say that bikes are a solution for all but a
> minority of people.
> I think the tram issue has been poorly planned and very poorly
> presented.
> If we need trams they need to sell the case better,they undersell the
> quality of the local bus service and their support for local rail
> services.
>
> Edinburgh council is not perfect of course,but I have lived in
> Edinburgh for all of my 45 years and the city has been transformed from
> the narrow minded staid bible thumping place it was in the early 1970s.
> Edinburgh's economic success,and its world wide positive image ,is
> something to be proud of.
> There are stil too many poor areas of course and too many kids at
> school do not get a good  worthwhile education.
> I would slate the poor performance of the cleansing department
> however,street cleaning is carried to the same standard citywide and
> the refuse collection does not always happen on the day it should.
> My contacts with the council,to complain about various problems,have
> been much more positive over recent years but staff attitude is
> sometimes still a problem.
> But Glasgow council is worse it seems,it requires more people in
> Glasgow to do a worse job than in Edinburgh it seems.
>

sorry your argument is a little too complicated for me to understand.

wrote in message
news:1130278862.995074.254170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> sorry your argument is a little too complicated for me to understand.
>


I thought it might be.

> Everytime they do surveys people who do not use public transport
> underestimate the speed and frequency of public transport.
> In general I support the council's transport policies (transport is not
> just roads),the bus service is good for most areas of the city.


Totally - I work in a large building near Crewe Toll (not the one that
makes missiles!) and our employer did a survey a few years back about
travelling to work.  Around 80% of the employees came from Edinburgh,
and 90% of those drove to work.  The survey asked if public transport
was better would they switch and the vast majority said no.

I knew of people who drove from Comely Bank (15 mins walk?), and one
person even drove in from North Werber Pl (about 250 yds down the road)
and there's a bloke here now who drives his Audi TT in from Inverleith!

Most people who work here who live in Edinburgh and drive either think
buses are full of 'schemies' (their words) with colds etc or think
having to change buses in the city centre is too much hassle

neutron (abcde) wrote:

> yadda yadda yadda you talk pish.


Pish or otherwise, he's the one who's smiling (a bit) cos he's maybe
happy with some aspects of the council's performance while you're the
one getting het up nd without enough imagination to do anything more
about it than post your wee rants usenet, then sling chilidish insults
at anyone who dares to take a contrary view.   I know who I'm laughing
at.

On 25 Oct 2005 12:02:45 -0700 someone who may be
ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk wrote this:-


>I do think before I vote,I remember when we had a useless tory council
>run by corrupt builders and people who gave golden putters to South
>African golfers.


And one of the reasons that the public elected the Labour lot was
that they promised to cancel the Western Approach Road, which they
did.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

wrote in message
news:1130312490.593992.6960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > Everytime they do surveys people who do not use public transport
> > underestimate the speed and frequency of public transport.
> > In general I support the council's transport policies (transport is not
> > just roads),the bus service is good for most areas of the city.
>
> Totally - I work in a large building near Crewe Toll (not the one that
> makes missiles!) and our employer did a survey a few years back about
> travelling to work.  Around 80% of the employees came from Edinburgh,
> and 90% of those drove to work.  The survey asked if public transport
> was better would they switch and the vast majority said no.
>
> I knew of people who drove from Comely Bank (15 mins walk?), and one
> person even drove in from North Werber Pl (about 250 yds down the road)
> and there's a bloke here now who drives his Audi TT in from Inverleith!
>
> Most people who work here who live in Edinburgh and drive either think
> buses are full of 'schemies' (their words) with colds etc or think
> having to change buses in the city centre is too much hassle
>


In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving when
they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about more
than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's going
out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and events.
Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make their
mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on whatever
takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:r17vl1hvhsn4ej0fij2kf13undc266jjos@4ax.com...

> On 25 Oct 2005 12:02:45 -0700 someone who may be
> ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk wrote this:-
>
> >I do think before I vote,I remember when we had a useless tory council
> >run by corrupt builders and people who gave golden putters to South
> >African golfers.
>
> And one of the reasons that the public elected the Labour lot was
> that they promised to cancel the Western Approach Road, which they
> did.


Yeah right, that's why they got elected...

In article <djq29k$bqi$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Toom Tabard
 wrote:


>  
> 
> "neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
> news:djoih9$89h$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving 
> > when
> > they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about 
> > more
> > than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's 
> > going
> > out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and events.
> > Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make their
> > mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on 
> > whatever
> > takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.
> >
> >
> Some of the money thrown around is because the Scottish Executive has too 
> much funding and, rather than reduce taxes, give out shedloads to be spent, 
> usually with a very strict deadline. The rush about the proposed skateboard 
> park in the Meadows a couple of years back was because the council got a 
> large amount from the executive to spend on such projects.
> In my street we're getting bus boarders; sticky-out bits of pavement, at 4 
> bus stops at 2000+ per stop. ... [etc.]


The same for the speedhumps and alleged 20mph zones around schools -
the council was given some large sum (1.8m?) which could only be spent
on such measures, so of course it spent it.  One of the alternatives
would have been, I guess, to lay off some workers.

Sam

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:21:51 UTC, Sam Wilson  
wrote:


> One of the alternatives
> would have been, I guess, to lay off some workers.


And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

> And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.


<Devil's advocate mode>
Why should it?
</Devil's advocate mode>

I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
-- 
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
 hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value.  The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

"neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
news:djoih9$89h$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving 
> when
> they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about 
> more
> than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's 
> going
> out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and events.
> Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make their
> mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on 
> whatever
> takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.
>
>

Some of the money thrown around is because the Scottish Executive has too 
much funding and, rather than reduce taxes, give out shedloads to be spent, 
usually with a very strict deadline. The rush about the proposed skateboard 
park in the Meadows a couple of years back was because the council got a 
large amount from the executive to spend on such projects.
In my street we're getting bus boarders; sticky-out bits of pavement, at 4 
bus stops at 2000+ per stop. This is in a residential street that has only 
one local bus at half-hourly intervals. The vast majority of residents, 
including bus-users, think it is a waste of money and we've told the council 
that, 'it ain't broke so don't fix it'. We're told it is being done and 
being done now because money has come from the Scottish executive for this. 
We either allow it to be done or they'll come and paint 25 metre 'bus stop' 
boxes at each stop, each removing 6 car parking places. We've managed, as a 
special concession, to get them to agree NOT to provide bus shelters.

Toom

In article <djq29k$bqi$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Toom Tabard
 wrote:


>  
> 
> "neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
> news:djoih9$89h$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving 
> > when
> > they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about 
> > more
> > than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's 
> > going
> > out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and events.
> > Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make their
> > mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on 
> > whatever
> > takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.
> >
> >
> Some of the money thrown around is because the Scottish Executive has too 
> much funding and, rather than reduce taxes, give out shedloads to be spent, 
> usually with a very strict deadline. The rush about the proposed skateboard 
> park in the Meadows a couple of years back was because the council got a 
> large amount from the executive to spend on such projects.
> In my street we're getting bus boarders; sticky-out bits of pavement, at 4 
> bus stops at 2000+ per stop. ... [etc.]


The same for the speedhumps and alleged 20mph zones around schools -
the council was given some large sum (1.8m?) which could only be spent
on such measures, so of course it spent it.  One of the alternatives
would have been, I guess, to lay off some workers.

Sam

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:21:51 UTC, Sam Wilson  
wrote:


> One of the alternatives
> would have been, I guess, to lay off some workers.


And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

> And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.


<Devil's advocate mode>
Why should it?
</Devil's advocate mode>

I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
-- 
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
 hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value.  The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

"Toom Tabard"  wrote in message
news:djq29k$bqi$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>
> "neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message
> news:djoih9$89h$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving
> > when
> > they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about
> > more
> > than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's
> > going
> > out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and
events.
> > Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make
their
> > mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on
> > whatever
> > takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.
> >
> >
> Some of the money thrown around is because the Scottish Executive has too
> much funding and, rather than reduce taxes, give out shedloads to be
spent,
> usually with a very strict deadline. The rush about the proposed
skateboard
> park in the Meadows a couple of years back was because the council got a
> large amount from the executive to spend on such projects.
> In my street we're getting bus boarders; sticky-out bits of pavement, at 4
> bus stops at 2000+ per stop. This is in a residential street that has
only
> one local bus at half-hourly intervals. The vast majority of residents,
> including bus-users, think it is a waste of money and we've told the
council
> that, 'it ain't broke so don't fix it'. We're told it is being done and
> being done now because money has come from the Scottish executive for
this.
> We either allow it to be done or they'll come and paint 25 metre 'bus
stop'
> boxes at each stop, each removing 6 car parking places. We've managed, as
a
> special concession, to get them to agree NOT to provide bus shelters.


Then quite frankly they need people who can think of good things to spend
the money on rather than pointless things! Surely any large organisation
worth it's salt has a list of potential improvements etc that extends beyond
sticky-out pavements etc etc?????

"soup"  wrote in message
news:7w78f.138832$G8.57908@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
>
> <Devil's advocate mode>
> Why should it?
> </Devil's advocate mode>
>
> I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.


Artworks? Well of coarse, but with unemployment at record lows (allegedly) I
think some trimming of the workforce would be wise. And there are more
things for the council to spend money on than "artworks"

How about all the small bridges in Edinburgh which have had to be narrowed
because they need structural work done on them and the council didn't want
to fork out the money so they have narrowed them to reduce the weight load
on them? There's one on Easter Road and there's one near the S-bend at
Seafield which has had traffic lights put on it so traffic can only go one
way over it at a time! Complete madness, short-termist and insulting to the
taxpayer.

"urchaidh"  wrote in message
news:1130329340.519627.263820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> neutron (abcde) wrote:
> > yadda yadda yadda you talk pish.
>
> Pish or otherwise, he's the one who's smiling (a bit) cos he's maybe
> happy with some aspects of the council's performance while you're the
> one getting het up nd without enough imagination to do anything more
> about it than post your wee rants usenet, then sling chilidish insults
> at anyone who dares to take a contrary view.   I know who I'm laughing
> at.
>


Read my other posts, urchin.

Sam Wilson  wrote:


> In article <djq29k$bqi$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Toom Tabard
>  wrote:
> 
> >  
> > 
> > "neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
> > news:djoih9$89h$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > >
> > > In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving
> > > when
> > > they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about
> > > more
> > > than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's
> > > going
> > > out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and events.
> > > Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make their
> > > mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on
> > > whatever
> > > takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.
> > >
> > >
> > Some of the money thrown around is because the Scottish Executive has too
> > much funding and, rather than reduce taxes, give out shedloads to be spent,
> > usually with a very strict deadline. The rush about the proposed skateboard
> > park in the Meadows a couple of years back was because the council got a
> > large amount from the executive to spend on such projects.
> > In my street we're getting bus boarders; sticky-out bits of pavement, at 4
> > bus stops at 2000+ per stop. ... [etc.]
> 
> The same for the speedhumps and alleged 20mph zones around schools -
> the council was given some large sum (1.8m?) which could only be spent
> on such measures, so of course it spent it.  One of the alternatives
> would have been, I guess, to lay off some workers.


No, because if they don't spend the money it is clawed back from next
year's budget. The problem is that central government (Scottish
Executive mainly) ring-fences money to pursue some policy objective, say
for example disabled access to public transport. All very worthwhile you
may think. But by the time lawyers and civil servants have finished with
it the conditions are very restrictive on exactly how this can be spent
by councils. Hence bus boarders.

That's not to say councils can't come up with their own ideas and get
them funded: they can, the trams are one example. But they have to
compete for such cash and don't always get as much as they asked for or
need.

How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
more money...;)

Netizen wrote:>

> How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> more money...;)


I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run 
facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I 
had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was 
essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was 
costed and time-planned. Approved budgets detailed which were approved. 
I then had to get authority to spend as needed. The idea that I was 
given 15M to play with as I wished was completely out of this world. 
Any project not commenced in a financial year was regarded as dead and 
had to be budgetted in next year. There was no claw-back of unexpended 
money. It was regarded as a bad thing to tie-up money for something not 
done as much as it was to overlook something essential.
Please don't tell me the finance people at local level have a key to the 
piggy bank?

In article <djrhc7$nfa$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Norma   wrote:

>I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run 
>facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I 
>had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was 
>essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was 


What's the difference between "absolutely had to" and "essential"?

"Norma"  wrote in message
news:djrhc7$nfa$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> Netizen wrote:>
> > How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> > see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> > Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> > more money...;)
>
> I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run
> facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I
> had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was
> essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was
> costed and time-planned. Approved budgets detailed which were approved.
> I then had to get authority to spend as needed. The idea that I was
> given 15M to play with as I wished was completely out of this world.
> Any project not commenced in a financial year was regarded as dead and
> had to be budgetted in next year. There was no claw-back of unexpended
> money. It was regarded as a bad thing to tie-up money for something not
> done as much as it was to overlook something essential.
> Please don't tell me the finance people at local level have a key to the
> piggy bank?
>


It pretty much sounds like it. they seem to be allowed to spend it on stuff
that isn't needed. There's definitely too much beaurocracy which is
restricting common sense.

"Toom Tabard"  wrote in message
news:djq29k$bqi$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>
> "neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message
> news:djoih9$89h$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving
> > when
> > they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about
> > more
> > than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's
> > going
> > out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and
events.
> > Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make
their
> > mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on
> > whatever
> > takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.
> >
> >
> Some of the money thrown around is because the Scottish Executive has too
> much funding and, rather than reduce taxes, give out shedloads to be
spent,
> usually with a very strict deadline. The rush about the proposed
skateboard
> park in the Meadows a couple of years back was because the council got a
> large amount from the executive to spend on such projects.
> In my street we're getting bus boarders; sticky-out bits of pavement, at 4
> bus stops at 2000+ per stop. This is in a residential street that has
only
> one local bus at half-hourly intervals. The vast majority of residents,
> including bus-users, think it is a waste of money and we've told the
council
> that, 'it ain't broke so don't fix it'. We're told it is being done and
> being done now because money has come from the Scottish executive for
this.
> We either allow it to be done or they'll come and paint 25 metre 'bus
stop'
> boxes at each stop, each removing 6 car parking places. We've managed, as
a
> special concession, to get them to agree NOT to provide bus shelters.


Then quite frankly they need people who can think of good things to spend
the money on rather than pointless things! Surely any large organisation
worth it's salt has a list of potential improvements etc that extends beyond
sticky-out pavements etc etc?????

"soup"  wrote in message
news:7w78f.138832$G8.57908@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
>
> <Devil's advocate mode>
> Why should it?
> </Devil's advocate mode>
>
> I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.


Artworks? Well of coarse, but with unemployment at record lows (allegedly) I
think some trimming of the workforce would be wise. And there are more
things for the council to spend money on than "artworks"

How about all the small bridges in Edinburgh which have had to be narrowed
because they need structural work done on them and the council didn't want
to fork out the money so they have narrowed them to reduce the weight load
on them? There's one on Easter Road and there's one near the S-bend at
Seafield which has had traffic lights put on it so traffic can only go one
way over it at a time! Complete madness, short-termist and insulting to the
taxpayer.

"urchaidh"  wrote in message
news:1130329340.519627.263820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> neutron (abcde) wrote:
> > yadda yadda yadda you talk pish.
>
> Pish or otherwise, he's the one who's smiling (a bit) cos he's maybe
> happy with some aspects of the council's performance while you're the
> one getting het up nd without enough imagination to do anything more
> about it than post your wee rants usenet, then sling chilidish insults
> at anyone who dares to take a contrary view.   I know who I'm laughing
> at.
>


Read my other posts, urchin.

Sam Wilson  wrote:


> In article <djq29k$bqi$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Toom Tabard
>  wrote:
> 
> >  
> > 
> > "neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
> > news:djoih9$89h$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > >
> > > In the school holidays the roads are fine. I agree, it's people driving
> > > when
> > > they don't need to, but the point of me starting this thread was about
> > > more
> > > than just that. The council in Edinburgh throw money around like it's
> > > going
> > > out of fashion, usually on half-arsed ill thought out schemes and events.
> > > Councillors these days seem to have this idea that they have to make their
> > > mark on the city and they cant wait to start splashing the cash on
> > > whatever
> > > takes their fancy and they don't listen properly to their critics.
> > >
> > >
> > Some of the money thrown around is because the Scottish Executive has too
> > much funding and, rather than reduce taxes, give out shedloads to be spent,
> > usually with a very strict deadline. The rush about the proposed skateboard
> > park in the Meadows a couple of years back was because the council got a
> > large amount from the executive to spend on such projects.
> > In my street we're getting bus boarders; sticky-out bits of pavement, at 4
> > bus stops at 2000+ per stop. ... [etc.]
> 
> The same for the speedhumps and alleged 20mph zones around schools -
> the council was given some large sum (1.8m?) which could only be spent
> on such measures, so of course it spent it.  One of the alternatives
> would have been, I guess, to lay off some workers.


No, because if they don't spend the money it is clawed back from next
year's budget. The problem is that central government (Scottish
Executive mainly) ring-fences money to pursue some policy objective, say
for example disabled access to public transport. All very worthwhile you
may think. But by the time lawyers and civil servants have finished with
it the conditions are very restrictive on exactly how this can be spent
by councils. Hence bus boarders.

That's not to say councils can't come up with their own ideas and get
them funded: they can, the trams are one example. But they have to
compete for such cash and don't always get as much as they asked for or
need.

How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
more money...;)

Netizen wrote:>

> How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> more money...;)


I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run 
facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I 
had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was 
essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was 
costed and time-planned. Approved budgets detailed which were approved. 
I then had to get authority to spend as needed. The idea that I was 
given 15M to play with as I wished was completely out of this world. 
Any project not commenced in a financial year was regarded as dead and 
had to be budgetted in next year. There was no claw-back of unexpended 
money. It was regarded as a bad thing to tie-up money for something not 
done as much as it was to overlook something essential.
Please don't tell me the finance people at local level have a key to the 
piggy bank?

In article <djrhc7$nfa$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Norma   wrote:

>I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run 
>facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I 
>had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was 
>essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was 


What's the difference between "absolutely had to" and "essential"?

"Norma"  wrote in message
news:djrhc7$nfa$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> Netizen wrote:>
> > How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> > see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> > Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> > more money...;)
>
> I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run
> facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I
> had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was
> essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was
> costed and time-planned. Approved budgets detailed which were approved.
> I then had to get authority to spend as needed. The idea that I was
> given 15M to play with as I wished was completely out of this world.
> Any project not commenced in a financial year was regarded as dead and
> had to be budgetted in next year. There was no claw-back of unexpended
> money. It was regarded as a bad thing to tie-up money for something not
> done as much as it was to overlook something essential.
> Please don't tell me the finance people at local level have a key to the
> piggy bank?
>


It pretty much sounds like it. they seem to be allowed to spend it on stuff
that isn't needed. There's definitely too much beaurocracy which is
restricting common sense.

"Netizen"  wrote in message
news:1h53yq2.1rx63yw1glev10N%netizen@nowhere.org...

> No, because if they don't spend the money it is clawed back from next
> year's budget. The problem is that central government (Scottish
> Executive mainly) ring-fences money to pursue some policy objective, say
> for example disabled access to public transport. All very worthwhile you
> may think. But by the time lawyers and civil servants have finished with
> it the conditions are very restrictive on exactly how this can be spent
> by councils. Hence bus boarders.
>
> That's not to say councils can't come up with their own ideas and get
> them funded: they can, the trams are one example. But they have to
> compete for such cash and don't always get as much as they asked for or
> need.
>
> How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> more money...;)
>


The other way to solve the problem of having so much money they have to
thrash around finding ways to spend it quickly, is the solution that never
occurs to politicians - don't collect it in the first place, i.e. reduce
taxation.

Toom

"Netizen"  wrote in message
news:1h53yq2.1rx63yw1glev10N%netizen@nowhere.org...

> No, because if they don't spend the money it is clawed back from next
> year's budget. The problem is that central government (Scottish
> Executive mainly) ring-fences money to pursue some policy objective, say
> for example disabled access to public transport. All very worthwhile you
> may think. But by the time lawyers and civil servants have finished with
> it the conditions are very restrictive on exactly how this can be spent
> by councils. Hence bus boarders.
>
> That's not to say councils can't come up with their own ideas and get
> them funded: they can, the trams are one example. But they have to
> compete for such cash and don't always get as much as they asked for or
> need.
>
> How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> more money...;)
>


The other way to solve the problem of having so much money they have to
thrash around finding ways to spend it quickly, is the solution that never
occurs to politicians - don't collect it in the first place, i.e. reduce
taxation.

Toom

Julian Bradfield wrote:


> What's the difference between "absolutely had to" and "essential"?

Absolutely had to - e.g. Repairs mandated in any lease, new Health & 
Safety legislation. Basically, works that if not done would lead to 
official action.
Essential - e.g. re-org in face of new major external project teams, 
planned maintenance of building machinery. Again, basically, stuff that 
in all common sense needed to be done so that the business could move 
ahead and function in coming financial year.

"neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
news:djrjad$2bu$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "Norma"  wrote in message
> news:djrhc7$nfa$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> Netizen wrote:>
>> > How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as 
>> > they
>> > see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
>> > Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted 
>> > with
>> > more money...;)
>>
>> I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run
>> facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I
>> had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was
>> essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was
>> costed and time-planned. Approved budgets detailed which were approved.
>> I then had to get authority to spend as needed. The idea that I was
>> given 15M to play with as I wished was completely out of this world.
>> Any project not commenced in a financial year was regarded as dead and
>> had to be budgetted in next year. There was no claw-back of unexpended
>> money. It was regarded as a bad thing to tie-up money for something not
>> done as much as it was to overlook something essential.
>> Please don't tell me the finance people at local level have a key to the
>> piggy bank?
>>
>
> It pretty much sounds like it. they seem to be allowed to spend it on 
> stuff
> that isn't needed. There's definitely too much beaurocracy which is
> restricting common sense.
>


There's also stuff like local community grant funds which were set up to 
fund projects for local community associations to improve their areas.
When the takeup was lower than the funding they didn't reduce the funding; 
they extended it to local organisations, groups, sports clubs, etc.
Now, instead of these organisations having jumble sales, coffee morning, 
etc. to raise their own funds, they apply for a community grant and the 
council taxpayer ends up paying. I know of one case where the local 
councillor thought it would be a good idea if the local community applied 
for 5,000 for a particular development in their area. The community 
association said they wouldn't apply; they didn't want the development and 
it wasn't good value for the money. Instead, the councillor found a way to 
get the money directly and the facility was provided.

Toom

Julian Bradfield wrote:


> What's the difference between "absolutely had to" and "essential"?

Absolutely had to - e.g. Repairs mandated in any lease, new Health & 
Safety legislation. Basically, works that if not done would lead to 
official action.
Essential - e.g. re-org in face of new major external project teams, 
planned maintenance of building machinery. Again, basically, stuff that 
in all common sense needed to be done so that the business could move 
ahead and function in coming financial year.

"neutron" <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote in message 
news:djrjad$2bu$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "Norma"  wrote in message
> news:djrhc7$nfa$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> Netizen wrote:>
>> > How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as 
>> > they
>> > see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
>> > Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted 
>> > with
>> > more money...;)
>>
>> I don't know how authorities put their budgets in. I used to run
>> facilities management for a large company. Came to about 15M/year. I
>> had to detail what I absolutely had to do the next year, what was
>> essential to do and what would be nice to have done. Each project was
>> costed and time-planned. Approved budgets detailed which were approved.
>> I then had to get authority to spend as needed. The idea that I was
>> given 15M to play with as I wished was completely out of this world.
>> Any project not commenced in a financial year was regarded as dead and
>> had to be budgetted in next year. There was no claw-back of unexpended
>> money. It was regarded as a bad thing to tie-up money for something not
>> done as much as it was to overlook something essential.
>> Please don't tell me the finance people at local level have a key to the
>> piggy bank?
>>
>
> It pretty much sounds like it. they seem to be allowed to spend it on 
> stuff
> that isn't needed. There's definitely too much beaurocracy which is
> restricting common sense.
>


There's also stuff like local community grant funds which were set up to 
fund projects for local community associations to improve their areas.
When the takeup was lower than the funding they didn't reduce the funding; 
they extended it to local organisations, groups, sports clubs, etc.
Now, instead of these organisations having jumble sales, coffee morning, 
etc. to raise their own funds, they apply for a community grant and the 
council taxpayer ends up paying. I know of one case where the local 
councillor thought it would be a good idea if the local community applied 
for 5,000 for a particular development in their area. The community 
association said they wouldn't apply; they didn't want the development and 
it wasn't good value for the money. Instead, the councillor found a way to 
get the money directly and the facility was provided.

Toom

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:46:59 UTC, "soup"  wrote:


> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> 
> <Devil's advocate mode>
> Why should it?
> </Devil's advocate mode>
> 
> I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.


<ad absurbam>
Why should a council ever not employ /anyone/?
</ad absubam>

Council workforces are there to provide services to the taxpayers. The
should employ the bare minimum number of people to do the bare minimum
of tasks needed. I don't think councils should piss money away on 
artwork anymore than they should piss it away on employing unnecessary
road sweepers.

Ian

--

Ian Johnston wrote:

> <ad absurbam>
> Why should a council ever not employ /anyone/?
> </ad absubam>


When that person gets more money/more kudos/prefers doing something
else.


> Council workforces are there to provide services to the taxpayers. The
> should employ the bare minimum number of people to do the bare minimum
> of tasks needed. I don't think councils should piss money away on
> artwork anymore than they should piss it away on employing unnecessary
> road sweepers.


If they weren't employed by the council (even doing something as daft as
sweeping streets which are already clean ) would they not just be on the
dole/income support (whatever it's called these days) which is also paid
by the taxpayer, would it not be better to get something, anything, for
the money?

P.S. Yes I am a believer in people who claim the dole being "used"
[1]for canal cleaning/road sweeping/leaf clearing and all those other
wee jobs everyone says "someone should ..."

[1] Obviously there will be the odd exeption but in general
-- 
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
 hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value.  The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:46:59 UTC, "soup"  wrote:


> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> 
> <Devil's advocate mode>
> Why should it?
> </Devil's advocate mode>
> 
> I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.


<ad absurbam>
Why should a council ever not employ /anyone/?
</ad absubam>

Council workforces are there to provide services to the taxpayers. The
should employ the bare minimum number of people to do the bare minimum
of tasks needed. I don't think councils should piss money away on 
artwork anymore than they should piss it away on employing unnecessary
road sweepers.

Ian

--

Ian Johnston wrote:

> <ad absurbam>
> Why should a council ever not employ /anyone/?
> </ad absubam>


When that person gets more money/more kudos/prefers doing something
else.


> Council workforces are there to provide services to the taxpayers. The
> should employ the bare minimum number of people to do the bare minimum
> of tasks needed. I don't think councils should piss money away on
> artwork anymore than they should piss it away on employing unnecessary
> road sweepers.


If they weren't employed by the council (even doing something as daft as
sweeping streets which are already clean ) would they not just be on the
dole/income support (whatever it's called these days) which is also paid
by the taxpayer, would it not be better to get something, anything, for
the money?

P.S. Yes I am a believer in people who claim the dole being "used"
[1]for canal cleaning/road sweeping/leaf clearing and all those other
wee jobs everyone says "someone should ..."

[1] Obviously there will be the odd exeption but in general
-- 
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
 hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value.  The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:20:15 UTC, "soup"  wrote:


> If they weren't employed by the council (even doing something as daft as
> sweeping streets which are already clean ) would they not just be on the
> dole/income support (whatever it's called these days) which is also paid
> by the taxpayer, would it not be better to get something, anything, for
> the money?


If the alternative is idleness then yes, I am wholly in favour of 
expecting people to work in return for state aid. But in boom times 
councils should be as lean as possible.

Ian

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:20:15 UTC, "soup"  wrote:


> If they weren't employed by the council (even doing something as daft as
> sweeping streets which are already clean ) would they not just be on the
> dole/income support (whatever it's called these days) which is also paid
> by the taxpayer, would it not be better to get something, anything, for
> the money?


If the alternative is idleness then yes, I am wholly in favour of 
expecting people to work in return for state aid. But in boom times 
councils should be as lean as possible.

Ian

neutron <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote:


> "soup"  wrote in message
> news:7w78f.138832$G8.57908@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Ian Johnston wrote:
> > > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> >
> > <Devil's advocate mode>
> > Why should it?
> > </Devil's advocate mode>
> >
> > I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> > these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> > local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
> 
> Artworks? Well of coarse, but with unemployment at record lows (allegedly) I
> think some trimming of the workforce would be wise. And there are more
> things for the council to spend money on than "artworks"
> 
> How about all the small bridges in Edinburgh which have had to be narrowed
> because they need structural work done on them and the council didn't want
> to fork out the money so they have narrowed them to reduce the weight load
> on them? There's one on Easter Road and there's one near the S-bend at
> Seafield which has had traffic lights put on it so traffic can only go one
> way over it at a time! Complete madness, short-termist and insulting to the
> taxpayer.


This may not be the Council's fault. The bridge on Easter Road runs over
a railway, so I'm guessing this at least partly the responsibility of
Network Rail. Given the dire state of railway investment, don't expect
any progress on a remedy soon!

Also this problem only seems to have started after they commenced work
on the new flats next to the bridge: formerly it was old warehouses.
Something tells me the developers are denying they have weakened the
bridge by digging foundations, etc. and there's an almighty 3-way
wrangle going on as to who should sort it out. 

Hence they narrow the bridge. Not that it bothers me, but I can see how
drivers might be inconvenienced. I certainly don't feel "insulted" by
the situation, in fact anything that slows the more maniacal road users
on Easter Road is fine by me. And due to weight restritions on the
bridge there are not so many huge lorries tanking up Easter Road these
days scaring the pedestrians.

Ian Johnston  wrote:


> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:20:15 UTC, "soup"  wrote:
> 
> > If they weren't employed by the council (even doing something as daft as
> > sweeping streets which are already clean ) would they not just be on the
> > dole/income support (whatever it's called these days) which is also paid
> > by the taxpayer, would it not be better to get something, anything, for
> > the money?
> 
> If the alternative is idleness then yes, I am wholly in favour of 
> expecting people to work in return for state aid. But in boom times 
> councils should be as lean as possible.


On what basis? Surely if we are in a 'boom' situation then there will be
more call on local authority services such as roads, public transport,
sanitation, education, childcare, planning, building control, health and
safety, etc.

Or are you saying the private sector should deal with all this?

soup wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
>
> <Devil's advocate mode>
> Why should it?
> </Devil's advocate mode>


So they can cut the Council Tax.


> I'd rather £3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.


I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
in the local economy as I se fit.

Netizen wrote:

> 
> Hence they narrow the bridge. Not that it bothers me, but I can see how
> drivers might be inconvenienced. I certainly don't feel "insulted" by
> the situation, in fact anything that slows the more maniacal road users
> on Easter Road is fine by me. And due to weight restritions on the
> bridge there are not so many huge lorries tanking up Easter Road these
> days scaring the pedestrians.
> 


Now they often just tank along Albert street unfortunately and there are 
kids playing along there a lot of the time.  The bridge caused much more 
of a problem when they closed it completely to anything heavier than a 
van while they strengthened it.  All the easter road buses had to go 
along Albert street which ended up developing a huge hole (about 10 foot 
round and the same in depth) so they had to move them again to Iona street.

Stewart

-- 
You are about to enter... The Scary Door...

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:00:05 UTC, netizen@nowhere.org (Netizen) wrote:


> > If the alternative is idleness then yes, I am wholly in favour of 
> > expecting people to work in return for state aid. But in boom times 
> > councils should be as lean as possible.
>  
> On what basis? Surely if we are in a 'boom' situation then there will be
> more call on local authority services such as roads, public transport,
> sanitation, education, childcare, planning, building control, health and
> safety, etc.


Lean = efficient, not small.

Ian

In article <dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-XCkCleuvToQB@localhost>,
 "Ian Johnston"  writes:

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:00:05 UTC, netizen@nowhere.org (Netizen) wrote:
> 
> > > If the alternative is idleness then yes, I am wholly in favour of 
> > > expecting people to work in return for state aid. But in boom times 
> > > councils should be as lean as possible.
> >  
> > On what basis? Surely if we are in a 'boom' situation then there will be
> > more call on local authority services such as roads, public transport,
> > sanitation, education, childcare, planning, building control, health and
> > safety, etc.
> 
> Lean = efficient, not small.


Or, alternatively, understaffed and completely unpossessed of any slack
capacity when it's needed.  Depends how far you take it.
-- 
SAm.

In message <djt5va$v3q$7@dulnain.stir.ac.uk>, Sam Nelson
 writes

>In article <dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-XCkCleuvToQB@localhost>,
> "Ian Johnston"  writes:

>>
>> Lean = efficient, not small.
>
>Or, alternatively, understaffed and completely unpossessed of any slack
>capacity when it's needed.  Depends how far you take it.


 People like drivers for snowploughs and road gritters or the emergency
workers that deal with flooding, for example. It's not possible to hire
them at a moment's notice and there is a limit to the number of overtime
hours drivers of heavy vehicles are allowed to work. In addition
ploughing snow is a skilled business requiring special training and
regular refresher courses. In the summer when the weather's fine these
people are just lazing about and the council is overstaffed and wasting
money. In the winter the same people are complaining about the lack of
snowploughs and why hasn't their road been ploughed yet? We're paying
all this money to the council and...
-- 
 My gmail account is nojay1                 Robert Sneddon

Stewart Smith  wrote:


> Now they often just tank along Albert street unfortunately and there are
> kids playing along there a lot of the time.  The bridge caused much more
> of a problem when they closed it completely to anything heavier than a
> van while they strengthened it.  All the easter road buses had to go 
> along Albert street which ended up developing a huge hole (about 10 foot
> round and the same in depth) so they had to move them again to Iona street.


Yeah, but that won't last for long. Albert Street is due to have traffic
calming measures installed and become a 20mph zone.

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> soup wrote:
> > Ian Johnston wrote:
> > > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> >
> > <Devil's advocate mode>
> > Why should it?
> > </Devil's advocate mode>
> 
> So they can cut the Council Tax.
> 
> > I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> > these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> > local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
> 
> I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> in the local economy as I se fit.


How far do you take that though? 

Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
that you don't work for the council of course.

Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
you go to work? Ah wait, there's a private nursery not much further
away. But they have immediately doubled their daily fees to compensate
for lack of council subsidy. Oh, and there's now a 6 month waiting list.
Damn! Who is going to look after youngster in the meantime? Maybe your
partner is going to have to leave her part-time job to look after the
kid. But that means you'll lose money. Hmmm.

Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!

You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now 3. 

Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...

And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!

Netizen wrote:

> Anthony Cunningham  wrote:
>
> > soup wrote:
> > > Ian Johnston wrote:
> > > > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> > >
> > > <Devil's advocate mode>
> > > Why should it?
> > > </Devil's advocate mode>
> >
> > So they can cut the Council Tax.
> >
> > > I'd rather £3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> > > these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> > > local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
> >
> > I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> > in the local economy as I se fit.
>
> How far do you take that though?
>
> Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> that you don't work for the council of course.


It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a. That only covers 20-25% of council spending
so there would be
4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.


> Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
> your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
> subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
> you go to work?


My kids are looked after by their mother.


> Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
> pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
> been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
> of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!


My mum does her own shopping and cleaning.


> You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
> several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
> that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
> one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now £3.


Nice try but I drive to work and the local bus service makes a profit
anyway. That gives 2 million to the council every year as a dividend
but now that we've abolished the council I get a cheque instead. Not
much, but every little helps.


> Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
> gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
> there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
> space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
> you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
> parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
> available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...


Again, another nice try but my car parking space is on private land and
is two minutes from the office door.

Meanwhile my employer no longer has to pay business rates and can
afford to give the staff a pay rise.


> And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
> your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
> pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
> those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
> local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!


Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
numpties at the council think I need.

As for maintaining the roads; do you really think the council is
spending any money on them at the moment? Most of the traffic budget is
being squandered on nonsense like the congestion charge referendum (We
needed a vote why exactly? It's not as though it was ever a popular
idea) and the latest lunacy in town which has left just about everyone
complaining.

"Netizen"  wrote in message 
news:1h55dch.1utdjdejg0zggN%netizen@nowhere.org...

>
> How far do you take that though?
>
> Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> that you don't work for the council of course.
>


That's reductio ad absurdum. Sudden removal of all services would cause 
problems. Council and government services could be gradually reduced to what 
is basically necessary, which is a different matter.


> Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
> your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
> subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
> you go to work? Ah wait, there's a private nursery not much further
> away. But they have immediately doubled their daily fees to compensate
> for lack of council subsidy. Oh, and there's now a 6 month waiting list.
> Damn! Who is going to look after youngster in the meantime? Maybe your
> partner is going to have to leave her part-time job to look after the
> kid. But that means you'll lose money. Hmmm.
>

It is interesting that you think having a kid and immediately dumping it 
into subsidised care so that you can get back to work is reasonable and 
normal.
It is actually unnatural and a fairly recent phenomenon. Given that nowadays 
having a family is plannable, some system that gives people more 
responsibility for the costs and time investment in looking after their own 
child might be a good thing.


> Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
> pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
> been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
> of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!


Dumping your mother on the state is also a recent phenomenon. If she falls 
on hard times that's fair enough. Depends on why she hasn't made provision 
for her own old age. Perhaps because she was paying too much in tax to 
subsidise your childcare ?

>
> You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
> several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
> that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
> one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now 3.
>


Bus services make a profit since they were removed from council control and 
subsidy. About three services in Edinburgh were subsidised recently, I think 
they are now self-sustaining.


> Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
> gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
> there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
> space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
> you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
> parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
> available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...
>


No one is suggesting the immediate cessation of essential road/transport 
services


> And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
> your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
> pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
> those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
> local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!
>


 I'd be please to move to water metering and to and pay the going rate for 
what I use. No-one is suggesting  basic education isn't essential and should 
be free. Perhaps whether higher education is subsidised should depend on 
your subject choice and whether it is provides you with a skill which is in 
demand. i.e also gives the taxpayer some return on his investment.

Toom

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> Netizen wrote:
> > How far do you take that though?
> >
> > Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> > extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> > that you don't work for the council of course.
> 
> It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
> Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a. 


That's 122.81 per month. Let's assume business rates add in an extra
100 quid or so per head, still only just over 200 quid a month.


> That only covers 20-25% of council spending
> so there would be
> 4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
> a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.


Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
central government, that's a different proposition.

That would mean no public libraries or parks; no local museums,
galleries, theatres or concert halls; no local sports facilities except
for those in private ownership; no state provision of children's
education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government);
no social work provision; no public housing stock; no housing benefit
for the unemployed, sick or disabled; no domestic or trade rubbish
removal, recycling or municipal dumps; no registrations of birth,
marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies; no environmental
health monitors, trading standards officers or dog wardens; no District
Court hearings; no Electoral Register...


> > Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
> > your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
> > subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
> > you go to work?
> 
> My kids are looked after by their mother.


That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
down I suppose.

But then mum and the kids will have to watch out for all the newly
homeless unemployed people roaming the streets because they've lost
their rent support. They might just break in to steal something to sell.
Better provide mum and the kids with some weapons to defend themselves.
Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
beggars and vicious stray dogs. And what are you going to do with all
that rubbish that needs to be dumped somewhere? So many things you'll
have to arrange yourself and pay for out of your own pocket...
 

> > Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
> > pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
> > been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
> > of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!
> 
> My mum does her own shopping and cleaning.


Lucky her. What about when she's 85 and needs to be looked after?
Packing her off to an old folks home I suppose? Hope they have fire
insurance.


> > You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
> > several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
> > that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
> > one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now 3.
> 
> Nice try but I drive to work and the local bus service makes a profit
> anyway. That gives 2 million to the council every year as a dividend
> but now that we've abolished the council I get a cheque instead. Not
> much, but every little helps.


Ah, but if you take away the fare subsidies the bus service makes a huge
loss, so services and frequency are cut and fares have to rise.


> > Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
> > gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
> > there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
> > space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
> > you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
> > parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
> > available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...
> 
> Again, another nice try but my car parking space is on private land and
> is two minutes from the office door.


That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance, your car's
suspension will be fucked and you need to buy a new one or get extensive
repairs. That's if it hasn't already been nicked by a desperate homeless
person.


> Meanwhile my employer no longer has to pay business rates and can
> afford to give the staff a pay rise.


Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
the spare cash.


> > And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
> > your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
> > pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
> > those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
> > local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!
> 
> Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> numpties at the council think I need.


Current prices for decent private schools are around 7,000 per term per
child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
can get a place at all. 


> As for maintaining the roads; do you really think the council is
> spending any money on them at the moment? Most of the traffic budget is
> being squandered on nonsense like the congestion charge referendum (We
> needed a vote why exactly? It's not as though it was ever a popular
> idea) and the latest lunacy in town which has left just about everyone
> complaining.


Go to Africa and have a look at the roads. They don't have any money
spent on them. Do you want our roads to look like that? Then add 21st
century developed nation traffic to them. Within 6 months they'll be
virtually unusable.

neutron <neutron(abcde)@f.off.com> wrote:


> "soup"  wrote in message
> news:7w78f.138832$G8.57908@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Ian Johnston wrote:
> > > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> >
> > <Devil's advocate mode>
> > Why should it?
> > </Devil's advocate mode>
> >
> > I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> > these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> > local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
> 
> Artworks? Well of coarse, but with unemployment at record lows (allegedly) I
> think some trimming of the workforce would be wise. And there are more
> things for the council to spend money on than "artworks"
> 
> How about all the small bridges in Edinburgh which have had to be narrowed
> because they need structural work done on them and the council didn't want
> to fork out the money so they have narrowed them to reduce the weight load
> on them? There's one on Easter Road and there's one near the S-bend at
> Seafield which has had traffic lights put on it so traffic can only go one
> way over it at a time! Complete madness, short-termist and insulting to the
> taxpayer.


This may not be the Council's fault. The bridge on Easter Road runs over
a railway, so I'm guessing this at least partly the responsibility of
Network Rail. Given the dire state of railway investment, don't expect
any progress on a remedy soon!

Also this problem only seems to have started after they commenced work
on the new flats next to the bridge: formerly it was old warehouses.
Something tells me the developers are denying they have weakened the
bridge by digging foundations, etc. and there's an almighty 3-way
wrangle going on as to who should sort it out. 

Hence they narrow the bridge. Not that it bothers me, but I can see how
drivers might be inconvenienced. I certainly don't feel "insulted" by
the situation, in fact anything that slows the more maniacal road users
on Easter Road is fine by me. And due to weight restritions on the
bridge there are not so many huge lorries tanking up Easter Road these
days scaring the pedestrians.

neutron wrote:

> Why do Edinburgh residents keep voting in the same useless bastards every
> time, look at the state of Edinburgh's roads, the pointless revisions that
> keep being made every couple of years for absolutely no benefit to anyone.
> THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Whenever I see multiple exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!) and SHOUTING it 
makes me take the message less seriously. Perhaps contrary to what you 
expect...
Also, your keyboard has a ? symbol on it. It's a "question mark" and it 
goes after questions.

Ian Johnston  wrote:


> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:20:15 UTC, "soup"  wrote:
> 
> > If they weren't employed by the council (even doing something as daft as
> > sweeping streets which are already clean ) would they not just be on the
> > dole/income support (whatever it's called these days) which is also paid
> > by the taxpayer, would it not be better to get something, anything, for
> > the money?
> 
> If the alternative is idleness then yes, I am wholly in favour of 
> expecting people to work in return for state aid. But in boom times 
> councils should be as lean as possible.


On what basis? Surely if we are in a 'boom' situation then there will be
more call on local authority services such as roads, public transport,
sanitation, education, childcare, planning, building control, health and
safety, etc.

Or are you saying the private sector should deal with all this?

soup wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
>
> <Devil's advocate mode>
> Why should it?
> </Devil's advocate mode>


So they can cut the Council Tax.


> I'd rather £3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.


I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
in the local economy as I se fit.

Netizen wrote:

> 
> Hence they narrow the bridge. Not that it bothers me, but I can see how
> drivers might be inconvenienced. I certainly don't feel "insulted" by
> the situation, in fact anything that slows the more maniacal road users
> on Easter Road is fine by me. And due to weight restritions on the
> bridge there are not so many huge lorries tanking up Easter Road these
> days scaring the pedestrians.
> 


Now they often just tank along Albert street unfortunately and there are 
kids playing along there a lot of the time.  The bridge caused much more 
of a problem when they closed it completely to anything heavier than a 
van while they strengthened it.  All the easter road buses had to go 
along Albert street which ended up developing a huge hole (about 10 foot 
round and the same in depth) so they had to move them again to Iona street.

Stewart

-- 
You are about to enter... The Scary Door...

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:00:05 UTC, netizen@nowhere.org (Netizen) wrote:


> > If the alternative is idleness then yes, I am wholly in favour of 
> > expecting people to work in return for state aid. But in boom times 
> > councils should be as lean as possible.
>  
> On what basis? Surely if we are in a 'boom' situation then there will be
> more call on local authority services such as roads, public transport,
> sanitation, education, childcare, planning, building control, health and
> safety, etc.


Lean = efficient, not small.

Ian

Stewart Smith  wrote:


> Now they often just tank along Albert street unfortunately and there are
> kids playing along there a lot of the time.  The bridge caused much more
> of a problem when they closed it completely to anything heavier than a
> van while they strengthened it.  All the easter road buses had to go 
> along Albert street which ended up developing a huge hole (about 10 foot
> round and the same in depth) so they had to move them again to Iona street.


Yeah, but that won't last for long. Albert Street is due to have traffic
calming measures installed and become a 20mph zone.

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> soup wrote:
> > Ian Johnston wrote:
> > > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> >
> > <Devil's advocate mode>
> > Why should it?
> > </Devil's advocate mode>
> 
> So they can cut the Council Tax.
> 
> > I'd rather 3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> > these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> > local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
> 
> I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> in the local economy as I se fit.


How far do you take that though? 

Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
that you don't work for the council of course.

Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
you go to work? Ah wait, there's a private nursery not much further
away. But they have immediately doubled their daily fees to compensate
for lack of council subsidy. Oh, and there's now a 6 month waiting list.
Damn! Who is going to look after youngster in the meantime? Maybe your
partner is going to have to leave her part-time job to look after the
kid. But that means you'll lose money. Hmmm.

Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!

You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now 3. 

Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...

And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!

Netizen wrote:

> Anthony Cunningham  wrote:
>
> > soup wrote:
> > > Ian Johnston wrote:
> > > > And heaven forbid that a council should /ever/ reduce its workforce.
> > >
> > > <Devil's advocate mode>
> > > Why should it?
> > > </Devil's advocate mode>
> >
> > So they can cut the Council Tax.
> >
> > > I'd rather £3~400 (whatever is the average that a council worker is paid
> > > these days) a week was given to someone who then spent it on/in the
> > > local economy, rather than lots of money put into artworks etc.
> >
> > I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> > in the local economy as I se fit.
>
> How far do you take that though?
>
> Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> that you don't work for the council of course.


It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a. That only covers 20-25% of council spending
so there would be
4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.


> Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
> your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
> subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
> you go to work?


My kids are looked after by their mother.


> Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
> pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
> been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
> of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!


My mum does her own shopping and cleaning.


> You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
> several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
> that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
> one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now £3.


Nice try but I drive to work and the local bus service makes a profit
anyway. That gives 2 million to the council every year as a dividend
but now that we've abolished the council I get a cheque instead. Not
much, but every little helps.


> Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
> gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
> there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
> space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
> you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
> parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
> available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...


Again, another nice try but my car parking space is on private land and
is two minutes from the office door.

Meanwhile my employer no longer has to pay business rates and can
afford to give the staff a pay rise.


> And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
> your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
> pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
> those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
> local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!


Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
numpties at the council think I need.

As for maintaining the roads; do you really think the council is
spending any money on them at the moment? Most of the traffic budget is
being squandered on nonsense like the congestion charge referendum (We
needed a vote why exactly? It's not as though it was ever a popular
idea) and the latest lunacy in town which has left just about everyone
complaining.

neutron wrote:

> Why do Edinburgh residents keep voting in the same useless bastards every
> time, look at the state of Edinburgh's roads, the pointless revisions that
> keep being made every couple of years for absolutely no benefit to anyone.
> THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Whenever I see multiple exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!) and SHOUTING it 
makes me take the message less seriously. Perhaps contrary to what you 
expect...
Also, your keyboard has a ? symbol on it. It's a "question mark" and it 
goes after questions.

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> Netizen wrote:
> > How far do you take that though?
> >
> > Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> > extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> > that you don't work for the council of course.
> 
> It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
> Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a. 


That's 122.81 per month. Let's assume business rates add in an extra
100 quid or so per head, still only just over 200 quid a month.


> That only covers 20-25% of council spending
> so there would be
> 4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
> a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.


Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
central government, that's a different proposition.

That would mean no public libraries or parks; no local museums,
galleries, theatres or concert halls; no local sports facilities except
for those in private ownership; no state provision of children's
education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government);
no social work provision; no public housing stock; no housing benefit
for the unemployed, sick or disabled; no domestic or trade rubbish
removal, recycling or municipal dumps; no registrations of birth,
marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies; no environmental
health monitors, trading standards officers or dog wardens; no District
Court hearings; no Electoral Register...


> > Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
> > your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
> > subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
> > you go to work?
> 
> My kids are looked after by their mother.


That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
down I suppose.

But then mum and the kids will have to watch out for all the newly
homeless unemployed people roaming the streets because they've lost
their rent support. They might just break in to steal something to sell.
Better provide mum and the kids with some weapons to defend themselves.
Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
beggars and vicious stray dogs. And what are you going to do with all
that rubbish that needs to be dumped somewhere? So many things you'll
have to arrange yourself and pay for out of your own pocket...
 

> > Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
> > pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
> > been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
> > of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!
> 
> My mum does her own shopping and cleaning.


Lucky her. What about when she's 85 and needs to be looked after?
Packing her off to an old folks home I suppose? Hope they have fire
insurance.


> > You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
> > several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
> > that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
> > one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now 3.
> 
> Nice try but I drive to work and the local bus service makes a profit
> anyway. That gives 2 million to the council every year as a dividend
> but now that we've abolished the council I get a cheque instead. Not
> much, but every little helps.


Ah, but if you take away the fare subsidies the bus service makes a huge
loss, so services and frequency are cut and fares have to rise.


> > Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
> > gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
> > there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
> > space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
> > you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
> > parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
> > available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...
> 
> Again, another nice try but my car parking space is on private land and
> is two minutes from the office door.


That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance, your car's
suspension will be fucked and you need to buy a new one or get extensive
repairs. That's if it hasn't already been nicked by a desperate homeless
person.


> Meanwhile my employer no longer has to pay business rates and can
> afford to give the staff a pay rise.


Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
the spare cash.


> > And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
> > your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
> > pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
> > those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
> > local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!
> 
> Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> numpties at the council think I need.


Current prices for decent private schools are around 7,000 per term per
child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
can get a place at all. 


> As for maintaining the roads; do you really think the council is
> spending any money on them at the moment? Most of the traffic budget is
> being squandered on nonsense like the congestion charge referendum (We
> needed a vote why exactly? It's not as though it was ever a popular
> idea) and the latest lunacy in town which has left just about everyone
> complaining.


Go to Africa and have a look at the roads. They don't have any money
spent on them. Do you want our roads to look like that? Then add 21st
century developed nation traffic to them. Within 6 months they'll be
virtually unusable.

"Netizen"  wrote in message 
news:1h5705w.idagfmozo8hcN%netizen@nowhere.org...

>
> Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
> abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
> central government, that's a different proposition.
>


Arguing about what would happen if ALL local taxation was abolished TOMORROW 
is about as useful, sensible and enlightening as the conservative councillor 
who once sought to demonstrate that public transport could not replace the 
private car. He suggested  that all car users should leave their cars at 
home the following Monday and head for the nearest bus stop.

Toom

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> Netizen wrote:
> > How far do you take that though?
> >
> > Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> > extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> > that you don't work for the council of course.
> 
> It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
> Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a. 


That's 122.81 per month. Let's assume business rates add in an extra
100 quid or so per head, still only just over 200 quid a month.


> That only covers 20-25% of council spending
> so there would be
> 4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
> a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.


Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
central government, that's a different proposition.

That would mean no public libraries or parks; no local museums,
galleries, theatres or concert halls; no local sports facilities except
for those in private ownership; no state provision of children's
education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government);
no social work provision; no public housing stock; no housing benefit
for the unemployed, sick or disabled; no domestic or trade rubbish
removal, recycling or municipal dumps; no registrations of birth,
marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies; no environmental
health monitors, trading standards officers or dog wardens; no District
Court hearings; no Electoral Register...


> > Everything is fine for the first few days. But then, you discover that
> > your local nursery has been closed down because it's no longer receiving
> > subsidy from the council. Where are you going to put your toddler when
> > you go to work?
> 
> My kids are looked after by their mother.


That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
down I suppose.

But then mum and the kids will have to watch out for all the newly
homeless unemployed people roaming the streets because they've lost
their rent support. They might just break in to steal something to sell.
Better provide mum and the kids with some weapons to defend themselves.
Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
beggars and vicious stray dogs. And what are you going to do with all
that rubbish that needs to be dumped somewhere? So many things you'll
have to arrange yourself and pay for out of your own pocket...
 

> > Then your elderly mother phones. Can you bring some shopping round
> > pronto and cook it for her? Apparently the meals on wheels service has
> > been abolished due to lack of funds. But hey, you've got an extra couple
> > of hundred a month now, so you can do it yourself!
> 
> My mum does her own shopping and cleaning.


Lucky her. What about when she's 85 and needs to be looked after?
Packing her off to an old folks home I suppose? Hope they have fire
insurance.


> > You try to go to work the next morning. The queue at the bus stop is
> > several hundred people. When you enquire what's going on, you discover
> > that due to loss of subsidy, your local bus service has been reduced to
> > one every hour. Oh, and the minimum fare is now 3.
> 
> Nice try but I drive to work and the local bus service makes a profit
> anyway. That gives 2 million to the council every year as a dividend
> but now that we've abolished the council I get a cheque instead. Not
> much, but every little helps.


Ah, but if you take away the fare subsidies the bus service makes a huge
loss, so services and frequency are cut and fares have to rise.


> > Never mind, you'll take the car. After struggling with unbelievable
> > gridlock, you make it to your place of work 2 hours late only to find
> > there are no parking spaces. But what's happening? You have a reserved
> > space. Alas, due to the fact that traffic wardens have been privatised
> > you now have to enter a bidding process where they auction off the
> > parking spaces to the person prepared to pay the most. The nearest
> > available space is over 1 mile away from your place of work...
> 
> Again, another nice try but my car parking space is on private land and
> is two minutes from the office door.


That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance, your car's
suspension will be fucked and you need to buy a new one or get extensive
repairs. That's if it hasn't already been nicked by a desperate homeless
person.


> Meanwhile my employer no longer has to pay business rates and can
> afford to give the staff a pay rise.


Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
the spare cash.


> > And that's just the first week. Soon you'll have to start saving with
> > your neighbours to maintain your local bit of the road privately. And
> > pay for water and sewerage at private sector rates. And don't forget
> > those school fees once youngster reaches 5 years old: after all, your
> > local school has to pay its way somehow. What fun!
> 
> Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> numpties at the council think I need.


Current prices for decent private schools are around 7,000 per term per
child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
can get a place at all. 


> As for maintaining the roads; do you really think the council is
> spending any money on them at the moment? Most of the traffic budget is
> being squandered on nonsense like the congestion charge referendum (We
> needed a vote why exactly? It's not as though it was ever a popular
> idea) and the latest lunacy in town which has left just about everyone
> complaining.


Go to Africa and have a look at the roads. They don't have any money
spent on them. Do you want our roads to look like that? Then add 21st
century developed nation traffic to them. Within 6 months they'll be
virtually unusable.

"Netizen"  wrote in message 
news:1h5705w.idagfmozo8hcN%netizen@nowhere.org...

>
> Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
> abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
> central government, that's a different proposition.
>


Arguing about what would happen if ALL local taxation was abolished TOMORROW 
is about as useful, sensible and enlightening as the conservative councillor 
who once sought to demonstrate that public transport could not replace the 
private car. He suggested  that all car users should leave their cars at 
home the following Monday and head for the nearest bus stop.

Toom

"Alex Hunsley"  wrote in message
news:BuF8f.76102$Ih5.62548@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> neutron wrote:
> > Why do Edinburgh residents keep voting in the same useless bastards
every
> > time, look at the state of Edinburgh's roads, the pointless revisions
that
> > keep being made every couple of years for absolutely no benefit to
anyone.
> > THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Whenever I see multiple exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!) and SHOUTING it
> makes me take the message less seriously. Perhaps contrary to what you
> expect...
> Also, your keyboard has a ? symbol on it. It's a "question mark" and it
> goes after questions.
>


Really? I can see you take your punctuation seriously. Are you a primary
school teacher, perchance?

"Toom Tabard"  wrote in message
news:djrk7d$69d$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>
> "Netizen"  wrote in message
> news:1h53yq2.1rx63yw1glev10N%netizen@nowhere.org...
> > No, because if they don't spend the money it is clawed back from next
> > year's budget. The problem is that central government (Scottish
> > Executive mainly) ring-fences money to pursue some policy objective, say
> > for example disabled access to public transport. All very worthwhile you
> > may think. But by the time lawyers and civil servants have finished with
> > it the conditions are very restrictive on exactly how this can be spent
> > by councils. Hence bus boarders.
> >
> > That's not to say councils can't come up with their own ideas and get
> > them funded: they can, the trams are one example. But they have to
> > compete for such cash and don't always get as much as they asked for or
> > need.
> >
> > How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> > see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> > Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> > more money...;)
> >
>
> The other way to solve the problem of having so much money they have to
> thrash around finding ways to spend it quickly, is the solution that never
> occurs to politicians - don't collect it in the first place, i.e. reduce
> taxation.
>
> Toom


But then they'd have no play money. :-(

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:10:25 +0000, neutron wrote:
<snip>

> THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Speaking of which, it'll be interesting to see how many people spoil their
ballot paper by putting an 'X' in one box.

"Alex Hunsley"  wrote in message
news:BuF8f.76102$Ih5.62548@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> neutron wrote:
> > Why do Edinburgh residents keep voting in the same useless bastards
every
> > time, look at the state of Edinburgh's roads, the pointless revisions
that
> > keep being made every couple of years for absolutely no benefit to
anyone.
> > THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Whenever I see multiple exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!) and SHOUTING it
> makes me take the message less seriously. Perhaps contrary to what you
> expect...
> Also, your keyboard has a ? symbol on it. It's a "question mark" and it
> goes after questions.
>


Really? I can see you take your punctuation seriously. Are you a primary
school teacher, perchance?

"Toom Tabard"  wrote in message
news:djrk7d$69d$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>
> "Netizen"  wrote in message
> news:1h53yq2.1rx63yw1glev10N%netizen@nowhere.org...
> > No, because if they don't spend the money it is clawed back from next
> > year's budget. The problem is that central government (Scottish
> > Executive mainly) ring-fences money to pursue some policy objective, say
> > for example disabled access to public transport. All very worthwhile you
> > may think. But by the time lawyers and civil servants have finished with
> > it the conditions are very restrictive on exactly how this can be spent
> > by councils. Hence bus boarders.
> >
> > That's not to say councils can't come up with their own ideas and get
> > them funded: they can, the trams are one example. But they have to
> > compete for such cash and don't always get as much as they asked for or
> > need.
> >
> > How to solve this? Maybe allowing councils more freedom to spend as they
> > see fit? But then what would all the mandarins at St. Andrews house do?
> > Also, on the flip side some local councillors are not to be trusted with
> > more money...;)
> >
>
> The other way to solve the problem of having so much money they have to
> thrash around finding ways to spend it quickly, is the solution that never
> occurs to politicians - don't collect it in the first place, i.e. reduce
> taxation.
>
> Toom


But then they'd have no play money. :-(

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:10:25 +0000, neutron wrote:
<snip>

> THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Speaking of which, it'll be interesting to see how many people spoil their
ballot paper by putting an 'X' in one box.

Netizen wrote:

> Anthony Cunningham  wrote:
>
> > Netizen wrote:
> > > How far do you take that though?
> > >
> > > Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> > > extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> > > that you don't work for the council of course.
> >
> > It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
> > Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a.
>
> That's £122.81 per month. Let's assume business rates add in an extra
> 100 quid or so per head, still only just over 200 quid a month.
>
> > That only covers 20-25% of council spending
> > so there would be
> > 4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
> > a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.
>
> Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
> abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
> central government, that's a different proposition.


Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?


> That would mean no public libraries or parks;


The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.

As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.


> no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls;
> no local sports facilities except
> for those in private ownership;


And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
places do this and it seems to work for them.


> no state provision of children's
> education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
> motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government);
> no social work provision;


What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
alsation lets go of your kids eventually.


> no public housing stock; no housing benefit
> for the unemployed, sick or disabled;


Good. That would save a fortune.


> no domestic or trade rubbish
> removal, recycling or municipal dumps;


These have been effectively privatised already. The last time I went to
a municipal dump it was closed. At least the private sector understands
customer service and convenient opening hours.


> no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies;


You have to pay to access these services already.


> > My kids are looked after by their mother.
>
> That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
> vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
> mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
> fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
> don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
> down I suppose.


That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
bill them.


> Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
> beggars and vicious stray dogs.


And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
in what way?


> And what are you going to do with all
> that rubbish that needs to be dumped somewhere? So many things you'll
> have to arrange yourself and pay for out of your own pocket...


So many things that my cash wont be wasted on. So many things that I am
forced to pay for because some numpty on the council has been bunged a
few quid or has had his ear bent by some clown who thinks he knows
what's best for all of us.


> > Nice try but I drive to work and the local bus service makes a profit
> > anyway. That gives 2 million to the council every year as a dividend
> > but now that we've abolished the council I get a cheque instead. Not
> > much, but every little helps.
>
> Ah, but if you take away the fare subsidies the bus service makes a huge
> loss, so services and frequency are cut and fares have to rise.


Sigh, once again for the hard of understanding: there are no fare
subsidies. The bus company makes a profit and a dividend to the
council.


> That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
> ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance


And this would be different from the current state of the roads in what
way?


> Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
> the spare cash.


You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if they
were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is already
effectively private. What makes you think that the private sector can't
do a better job of all the others?


> > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> > I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> > numpties at the council think I need.
>
> Current prices for decent private schools are around £7,000 per term per
> child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
> with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
> will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
> can get a place at all.


There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group of
parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.


> Go to Africa and have a look at the roads.


Ah this must be the new version of "If you don't like it here then go
and live in Russia".


> They don't have any money
> spent on them. Do you want our roads to look like that?


In places they do.

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> Netizen wrote:
> > Anthony Cunningham  wrote:
> >
> > > Netizen wrote:
> > > > How far do you take that though?
> > > >
> > > > Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> > > > extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> > > > that you don't work for the council of course.
> > >
> > > It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
> > > Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a.
> >
> > That's 122.81 per month. Let's assume business rates add in an extra
> > 100 quid or so per head, still only just over 200 quid a month.
> >
> > > That only covers 20-25% of council spending
> > > so there would be
> > > 4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
> > > a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.
> >
> > Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
> > abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
> > central government, that's a different proposition.
> 
> Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
> you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
> them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?


The hypothesis was ridiculous because your proposition was ridiculous:

Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700
From: "Anthony Cunningham" 


> I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> in the local economy as I se fit.


For good measure, you went on to calculate exactly how much money that
would save you every month. My point was to show what services would be
lost if everyone decided to do as you suggest. You can't have it both
ways: if you privatise the public sphere you have to face the
consequences.


> > That would mean no public libraries or parks;
> 
> The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
> and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
> either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
> I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.


The "I'm alright Jack" approach to public education I see. 

Presumably with this philosophy, you'll also be installing your own
clean water supply collecting and filtering rainwater on your roof, and
your own septic tank for sewage, all at your own expense. After all, why
should everyone else subsidise your shit by allowing it into the public
network?


> As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
> gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.


Indeed there are private gardens, but unless you happen to be wealthy
enough to own property adjacent to them, you'll be denied access.
Perhaps you would have preferred it if the Earls of Haddington had kept
their rights to the Queen's Park/Holyrood Park? They could have
profitably quarried all that stone, and erected a large fence to keep
the likes of you and me out of their grounds. How very beneficial to
everyone, but especially to the Earls!


> > no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls;
> > no local sports facilities except
> > for those in private ownership;
> 
> And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
> places do this and it seems to work for them.

Such as?

> > no state provision of children's
> > education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
> > motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government);
> > no social work provision;
> 
> What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
> alsation lets go of your kids eventually.


Do you have personal experience of social workers taking your kids away?
That might explain certain views you hold.
 

> > no public housing stock; no housing benefit
> > for the unemployed, sick or disabled;
> 
> Good. That would save a fortune.


So saving money is the universal panacea that will cure society's ills?
While you are at it you can just persuade the police to round the
"economically inactive" up into concentration camps and get them to work
productively for private companies in return for meagre rations, instead
of cluttering the streets. And if some of them die from overwork, well
their clothes, fillings etc. can all be recycled and their bodies can
even be turned into soap! All for a tidy profit. Very cost-effective
"solution" to those pesky social problems. No doubt you'll be rushing to
invest in such a scheme - a sure fire earner. Hang on, didn't some
people try something similar before? Between 1933 and 1945? Better check
if you can license the IP.


> > no domestic or trade rubbish
> > removal, recycling or municipal dumps;
> 
> These have been effectively privatised already. The last time I went to
> a municipal dump it was closed. At least the private sector understands
> customer service and convenient opening hours.


There is difference between tendering out of contracts for a service and
a direct service contract relationship with the rubbish producer. How
would rubbish removal work under your 'no local government' system? You
might pay for a company to remove yours, but if your neighbour fancies
saving money he can just dump his stuff in your back garden or in the
street. He has no incentive to do anything about his waste problem, and
nobody will bother to collect it without being paid.


> > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies;
> 
> You have to pay to access these services already.


So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
abolished?


> > > My kids are looked after by their mother.
> >
> > That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
> > vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
> > mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
> > fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
> > don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
> > down I suppose.
> 
> That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
> bill them.


If you examine history, I think you'll find that this did not happen.
Those without insurance were left to burn. That's why private fire
brigades were abolished in favour of the current model of local
government run emergency services.


> > Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
> > beggars and vicious stray dogs.
> 
> And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
> in what way?


When was the last time you walked in a public park in Edinburgh?


> > That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
> > ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance
> 
> And this would be different from the current state of the roads in what
> way?


You really should try a journey on some roads in countries outside
Western Europe, North America or Japan/Hong Kong/Singapore. It's a real
eye-opener on what happens when not enough money is spent on maintaining
them.


> > Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> > security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
> > the spare cash.
> 
> You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if they
> were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is already
> effectively private. What makes you think that the private sector can't
> do a better job of all the others?


I suppose you think that the UK rail system is a trailblazing example of
the benefits of the private sector running things? Or perhaps you prefer
the example of the private pensions industry? Maybe you thought
endowment mortgages were a great deal? 

And you probably believe that the short stay parking charges for the new
ERI at Little France are really reasonable, and a fair way for the PFI
contractor to earn a bob or two from hospital "customers" on top of the
rent and service charges the NHS is paying. That'll be why the roads
near to the hospital are so clogged with cars avoiding the charges that
ambulances and fire engines have difficulty getting through. Wow! Isn't
the private sector efficient at providing "solutions"?


> > > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> > > I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> > > numpties at the council think I need.
> >
> > Current prices for decent private schools are around 7,000 per term per
> > child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
> > with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
> > will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
> > can get a place at all.
> 
> There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
> that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group of
> parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.


How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?

Netizen wrote:

> Anthony Cunningham  wrote:
>
> > Netizen wrote:
> > > How far do you take that though?
> > >
> > > Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> > > extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> > > that you don't work for the council of course.
> >
> > It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
> > Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a.
>
> That's £122.81 per month. Let's assume business rates add in an extra
> 100 quid or so per head, still only just over 200 quid a month.
>
> > That only covers 20-25% of council spending
> > so there would be
> > 4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
> > a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.
>
> Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
> abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
> central government, that's a different proposition.


Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?


> That would mean no public libraries or parks;


The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.

As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.


> no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls;
> no local sports facilities except
> for those in private ownership;


And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
places do this and it seems to work for them.


> no state provision of children's
> education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
> motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government);
> no social work provision;


What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
alsation lets go of your kids eventually.


> no public housing stock; no housing benefit
> for the unemployed, sick or disabled;


Good. That would save a fortune.


> no domestic or trade rubbish
> removal, recycling or municipal dumps;


These have been effectively privatised already. The last time I went to
a municipal dump it was closed. At least the private sector understands
customer service and convenient opening hours.


> no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies;


You have to pay to access these services already.


> > My kids are looked after by their mother.
>
> That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
> vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
> mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
> fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
> don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
> down I suppose.


That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
bill them.


> Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
> beggars and vicious stray dogs.


And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
in what way?


> And what are you going to do with all
> that rubbish that needs to be dumped somewhere? So many things you'll
> have to arrange yourself and pay for out of your own pocket...


So many things that my cash wont be wasted on. So many things that I am
forced to pay for because some numpty on the council has been bunged a
few quid or has had his ear bent by some clown who thinks he knows
what's best for all of us.


> > Nice try but I drive to work and the local bus service makes a profit
> > anyway. That gives 2 million to the council every year as a dividend
> > but now that we've abolished the council I get a cheque instead. Not
> > much, but every little helps.
>
> Ah, but if you take away the fare subsidies the bus service makes a huge
> loss, so services and frequency are cut and fares have to rise.


Sigh, once again for the hard of understanding: there are no fare
subsidies. The bus company makes a profit and a dividend to the
council.


> That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
> ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance


And this would be different from the current state of the roads in what
way?


> Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
> the spare cash.


You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if they
were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is already
effectively private. What makes you think that the private sector can't
do a better job of all the others?


> > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> > I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> > numpties at the council think I need.
>
> Current prices for decent private schools are around £7,000 per term per
> child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
> with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
> will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
> can get a place at all.


There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group of
parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.


> Go to Africa and have a look at the roads.


Ah this must be the new version of "If you don't like it here then go
and live in Russia".


> They don't have any money
> spent on them. Do you want our roads to look like that?


In places they do.

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> Netizen wrote:
> > Anthony Cunningham  wrote:
> >
> > > Netizen wrote:
> > > > How far do you take that though?
> > > >
> > > > Let's imagine all local taxation was abolished tomorrow. You have an
> > > > extra couple of hundred quid in your bank account each month, assuming
> > > > that you don't work for the council of course.
> > >
> > > It's a bit more than a couple of hundred quid. Band D council tax in
> > > Edinburgh is 1,473.76 p.a.
> >
> > That's 122.81 per month. Let's assume business rates add in an extra
> > 100 quid or so per head, still only just over 200 quid a month.
> >
> > > That only covers 20-25% of council spending
> > > so there would be
> > > 4421.28 coming back from the central government grant. So that's 491.25
> > > a month. Fuck me, that's more than my mortgage already.
> >
> > Well, the hypothetical situation only envisaged local taxation being
> > abolished. If you are talking about cutting all local expenditure by
> > central government, that's a different proposition.
> 
> Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
> you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
> them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?


The hypothesis was ridiculous because your proposition was ridiculous:

Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700
From: "Anthony Cunningham" 


> I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> in the local economy as I se fit.


For good measure, you went on to calculate exactly how much money that
would save you every month. My point was to show what services would be
lost if everyone decided to do as you suggest. You can't have it both
ways: if you privatise the public sphere you have to face the
consequences.


> > That would mean no public libraries or parks;
> 
> The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
> and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
> either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
> I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.


The "I'm alright Jack" approach to public education I see. 

Presumably with this philosophy, you'll also be installing your own
clean water supply collecting and filtering rainwater on your roof, and
your own septic tank for sewage, all at your own expense. After all, why
should everyone else subsidise your shit by allowing it into the public
network?


> As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
> gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.


Indeed there are private gardens, but unless you happen to be wealthy
enough to own property adjacent to them, you'll be denied access.
Perhaps you would have preferred it if the Earls of Haddington had kept
their rights to the Queen's Park/Holyrood Park? They could have
profitably quarried all that stone, and erected a large fence to keep
the likes of you and me out of their grounds. How very beneficial to
everyone, but especially to the Earls!


> > no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls;
> > no local sports facilities except
> > for those in private ownership;
> 
> And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
> places do this and it seems to work for them.

Such as?

> > no state provision of children's
> > education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
> > motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government);
> > no social work provision;
> 
> What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
> alsation lets go of your kids eventually.


Do you have personal experience of social workers taking your kids away?
That might explain certain views you hold.
 

> > no public housing stock; no housing benefit
> > for the unemployed, sick or disabled;
> 
> Good. That would save a fortune.


So saving money is the universal panacea that will cure society's ills?
While you are at it you can just persuade the police to round the
"economically inactive" up into concentration camps and get them to work
productively for private companies in return for meagre rations, instead
of cluttering the streets. And if some of them die from overwork, well
their clothes, fillings etc. can all be recycled and their bodies can
even be turned into soap! All for a tidy profit. Very cost-effective
"solution" to those pesky social problems. No doubt you'll be rushing to
invest in such a scheme - a sure fire earner. Hang on, didn't some
people try something similar before? Between 1933 and 1945? Better check
if you can license the IP.


> > no domestic or trade rubbish
> > removal, recycling or municipal dumps;
> 
> These have been effectively privatised already. The last time I went to
> a municipal dump it was closed. At least the private sector understands
> customer service and convenient opening hours.


There is difference between tendering out of contracts for a service and
a direct service contract relationship with the rubbish producer. How
would rubbish removal work under your 'no local government' system? You
might pay for a company to remove yours, but if your neighbour fancies
saving money he can just dump his stuff in your back garden or in the
street. He has no incentive to do anything about his waste problem, and
nobody will bother to collect it without being paid.


> > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies;
> 
> You have to pay to access these services already.


So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
abolished?


> > > My kids are looked after by their mother.
> >
> > That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
> > vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
> > mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
> > fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
> > don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
> > down I suppose.
> 
> That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
> bill them.


If you examine history, I think you'll find that this did not happen.
Those without insurance were left to burn. That's why private fire
brigades were abolished in favour of the current model of local
government run emergency services.


> > Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
> > beggars and vicious stray dogs.
> 
> And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
> in what way?


When was the last time you walked in a public park in Edinburgh?


> > That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
> > ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance
> 
> And this would be different from the current state of the roads in what
> way?


You really should try a journey on some roads in countries outside
Western Europe, North America or Japan/Hong Kong/Singapore. It's a real
eye-opener on what happens when not enough money is spent on maintaining
them.


> > Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> > security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
> > the spare cash.
> 
> You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if they
> were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is already
> effectively private. What makes you think that the private sector can't
> do a better job of all the others?


I suppose you think that the UK rail system is a trailblazing example of
the benefits of the private sector running things? Or perhaps you prefer
the example of the private pensions industry? Maybe you thought
endowment mortgages were a great deal? 

And you probably believe that the short stay parking charges for the new
ERI at Little France are really reasonable, and a fair way for the PFI
contractor to earn a bob or two from hospital "customers" on top of the
rent and service charges the NHS is paying. That'll be why the roads
near to the hospital are so clogged with cars avoiding the charges that
ambulances and fire engines have difficulty getting through. Wow! Isn't
the private sector efficient at providing "solutions"?


> > > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> > > I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> > > numpties at the council think I need.
> >
> > Current prices for decent private schools are around 7,000 per term per
> > child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
> > with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
> > will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
> > can get a place at all.
> 
> There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
> that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group of
> parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.


How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?

Netizen wrote:

> > Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
> > you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
> > them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?
>
> The hypothesis was ridiculous because your proposition was ridiculous:


What's so ridiculous about people keeping their own money and spending
it as they see fit?


> Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700
> From: "Anthony Cunningham" 
>
> > I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> > in the local economy as I se fit.
>
> For good measure, you went on to calculate exactly how much money that
> would save you every month. My point was to show what services would be
> lost if everyone decided to do as you suggest. You can't have it both
> ways: if you privatise the public sphere you have to face the
> consequences.


And the consequences would be nowhere like the Mad Max scenario that
you envisaged.


> > > That would mean no public libraries or parks;
> >
> > The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
> > and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
> > either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
> > I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.
>
> The "I'm alright Jack" approach to public education I see.


Sigh, the libraries stopped being a part of public education a long
time ago. Or do you regard Archer and Cookson as being of educational
value?


> Presumably with this philosophy, you'll also be installing your own
> clean water supply collecting and filtering rainwater on your roof, and
> your own septic tank for sewage, all at your own expense. After all, why
> should everyone else subsidise your shit by allowing it into the public
> network?


Why should I subsidise your shit?


> > As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
> > gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.
>
> Indeed there are private gardens, but unless you happen to be wealthy
> enough to own property adjacent to them, you'll be denied access.


That keeps the neds out. Face it, if you want quality services and
amenities you'll have to pay for them one way or another.


> Perhaps you would have preferred it if the Earls of Haddington had kept
> their rights to the Queen's Park/Holyrood Park? They could have
> profitably quarried all that stone, and erected a large fence to keep
> the likes of you and me out of their grounds. How very beneficial to
> everyone, but especially to the Earls!


Well bugger me blind; what's wrong with people disposing of their
property as they see fit?


> > > no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls;
> > > no local sports facilities except
> > > for those in private ownership;
> >
> > And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
> > places do this and it seems to work for them.
>
> Such as?


Most of the US.


> > > no state provision of children's
> > > education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
> > > motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government> > > no social work provision;
> >
> > What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
> > alsation lets go of your kids eventually.
>
> Do you have personal experience of social workers taking your kids away?
> That might explain certain views you hold.


No just what I read in the papers.



> So saving money is the universal panacea that will cure society's ills?


No, stopping politicians wasting our money is a good idea. There will
always be ills in society; it's just the hopeless collectivists that
like to imagine that if they take enough of our property then they can
build a paradise.


> While you are at it you can just persuade the police to round the
> "economically inactive" up into concentration camps and get them to work
> productively for private companies in return for meagre rations, instead
> of cluttering the streets. And if some of them die from overwork, well
> their clothes, fillings etc. can all be recycled and their bodies can
> even be turned into soap! All for a tidy profit. Very cost-effective
> "solution" to those pesky social problems. No doubt you'll be rushing to
> invest in such a scheme - a sure fire earner. Hang on, didn't some
> people try something similar before? Between 1933 and 1945? Better check
> if you can license the IP.


And I invoke Godwin's law here. You lose.


> There is difference between tendering out of contracts for a service and
> a direct service contract relationship with the rubbish producer. How
> would rubbish removal work under your 'no local government' system? You
> might pay for a company to remove yours, but if your neighbour fancies
> saving money he can just dump his stuff in your back garden or in the
> street. He has no incentive to do anything about his waste problem, and
> nobody will bother to collect it without being paid.


No-one can dump their rubbish on another person's property.


> > > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies;
> >
> > You have to pay to access these services already.
>
> So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
> abolished?


A private company?


> > > > My kids are looked after by their mother.
> > >
> > > That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
> > > vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
> > > mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
> > > fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
> > > don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
> > > down I suppose.
> >
> > That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
> > bill them.
>
> If you examine history, I think you'll find that this did not happen.
> Those without insurance were left to burn. That's why private fire
> brigades were abolished in favour of the current model of local
> government run emergency services.


I'm in a semi-detached house. My insurance would cover this
contingency.


> > > Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
> > > beggars and vicious stray dogs.
> >
> > And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
> > in what way?
>
> When was the last time you walked in a public park in Edinburgh?


A couple of weeks ago. They are shocking.


> > > That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
> > > ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance
> >
> > And this would be different from the current state of the roads in what
> > way?
>
> You really should try a journey on some roads in countries outside
> Western Europe, North America or Japan/Hong Kong/Singapore. It's a real
> eye-opener on what happens when not enough money is spent on maintaining
> them.


I can assure you that there's no need to go abroad to experience that.


> > > Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> > > security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
> > > the spare cash.
> >
> > You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if they
> > were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is already
> > effectively private. What makes you think that the private sector can't
> > do a better job of all the others?
>
> I suppose you think that the UK rail system is a trailblazing example of
> the benefits of the private sector running things?


The railways were not privatised. (For any meaningful value of
privatisation). The best thing to do there would have been to sell the
assets to the private sector and see what they made of them.


> Or perhaps you prefer the example of the private pensions industry?


I trust them more than I trust the government. Unfortunately I'm denied
a choice in the matter.

If government provision is so great why do they insist on making it
compulsory?


> Maybe you thought endowment mortgages were a great deal?


Nope, I never did. Still having seen the state of public housing I'd
take an endowment over a council house any day.


> And you probably believe that the short stay parking charges for the new
> ERI at Little France are really reasonable, and a fair way for the PFI
> contractor to earn a bob or two from hospital "customers" on top of the
> rent and service charges the NHS is paying. That'll be why the roads
> near to the hospital are so clogged with cars avoiding the charges that
> ambulances and fire engines have difficulty getting through. Wow! Isn't
> the private sector efficient at providing "solutions"?


The parking charges at the new ERI are designed to stop people parking
there because the council wants to stop people driving there. The
Murrayfield hospital has ample parking but then again it's a private
operation and understands what its customers want.


> > > > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> > > > I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> > > > numpties at the council think I need.
> > >
> > > Current prices for decent private schools are around £7,000 per term per
> > > child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
> > > with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
> > > will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
> > > can get a place at all.
> >
> > There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
> > that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group of
> > parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.
>
> How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
> council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?


So the council has some weird money-making machine that I don't know
about? Could it be that you're confusing a short-term cost with a
lifetime of contibutions?

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> Netizen wrote: 
>
> > >Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
> > >you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
> > >them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?
>
> >The hypothesis was ridiculous because your proposition was
> >ridiculous:
> 
> What's so ridiculous about people keeping their own money and spending it
> as they see fit?


You earn "your" money in exchange for your labour, unless you inherited
it or earned it through investments. So unless you already have money,
you generally need to supply your labour to an endeavour in order to
obtain some. This social convention makes our economic model possible.

Another social convention is that those who are unable to supply labour
to the workforce (whether through illness, disability, age or a lack of
employable skills) are provided for by redistributing money from those
who can. In most societies, this is the role of government and the
public sphere.

If you remove these conventions by privatising the public sector, rather
than creating some private sector utopia you may instead find that the
conventions that allow you to freely exchange your labour for money also
break down due to pressure from those disadvantaged by the
privatisation: concepts such as the rule of law, fair dealing, etc. may
begin to evaporate when there is "no alternative" to the private sector.



> > Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700 From: "Anthony Cunningham"
> > 
> >
> > > I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> > > in the local economy as I se fit.
> >
> > For good measure, you went on to calculate exactly how much money that
> > would save you every month. My point was to show what services would be
> > lost if everyone decided to do as you suggest. You can't have it both
> > ways: if you privatise the public sphere you have to face the
> > consequences.
> 
> And the consequences would be nowhere like the Mad Max scenario that you
> envisaged.


Can you prove otherwise?


> > > > That would mean no public libraries or parks;
> > >
> > > The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
> > > and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
> > > either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
> > > I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.
> >
> > The "I'm alright Jack" approach to public education I see.
> 
> Sigh, the libraries stopped being a part of public education a long time
> ago. Or do you regard Archer and Cookson as being of educational value?


That's relative to the level of education of the reader. To assert that
libraries are no longer a part of public education is simply fallacious.


> > > As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
> > > gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.
> >
> > Indeed there are private gardens, but unless you happen to be wealthy
> > enough to own property adjacent to them, you'll be denied access.
> 
> That keeps the neds out. Face it, if you want quality services and
> amenities you'll have to pay for them one way or another.


True, but in your model there would be no universal provision of
services. Once you privatise every local service to the level of
individual choices, the provision of services would become chaotic in
its variability. Hardly a recipe for social stability, which is usually
necessary for a market economy model to function properly.


> > Perhaps you would have preferred it if the Earls of Haddington had kept
> > their rights to the Queen's Park/Holyrood Park? They could have
> > profitably quarried all that stone, and erected a large fence to keep
> > the likes of you and me out of their grounds. How very beneficial to
> > everyone, but especially to the Earls!
> 
> Well bugger me blind; what's wrong with people disposing of their property
> as they see fit?


It depends upon how they obtained the property in the first place. Are
you suggesting we revert to feudalism? You might find your idealised
market in services severely hampered by the power of extremely wealthy
individuals.


> > > > no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls; no local
> > > > sports facilities except for those in private ownership;
> > >
> > > And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
> > > places do this and it seems to work for them.
> >
> > Such as?
> 
> Most of the US.


That's another fallacy, often repeated about the USA. Public sector
service provision is still a large part of the US economy, at local,
state and federal levels. Many other services, especially cultural ones,
are provided by non-profit organisations, so as not to be liable for
taxation: the equivalent of UK charities.

This is not the same as these services being "in private hands".


> > > > no state provision of children's education; no fire brigade; no
> > > > local transport expenditure (just motorways and railways would be
> > > > funded directly by central government); no social work provision;
> > >
> > > What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
> > > alsation lets go of your kids eventually.
> >
> > Do you have personal experience of social workers taking your kids away?
> > That might explain certain views you hold.
> 
> No just what I read in the papers.


I'm guessing you're a Daily Mail reader.


> > So saving money is the universal panacea that will cure society's ills?
> 
> No, stopping politicians wasting our money is a good idea. There will
> always be ills in society; it's just the hopeless collectivists that like
> to imagine that if they take enough of our property then they can build a
> paradise.


I see. Hopeless collectivists like David McLetchie? Do you think he was
building a paradise through his taxi journeys? He was certainly wasting
our money. Or perhaps the hopeless collectivist John Major, instigator
of the Millenium Dome?

The problem with your type is that you preach the gospel of the free
market, but when it comes down to it you still have your snout in the
trough of public cash.


> And I invoke Godwin's law here. You lose.


Well, that's not the effect of invoking Godwin's law. I refer you to
Miller's paradox and Guy's corollary.


> > There is difference between tendering out of contracts for a service and
> > a direct service contract relationship with the rubbish producer. How
> > would rubbish removal work under your 'no local government' system? You
> > might pay for a company to remove yours, but if your neighbour fancies
> > saving money he can just dump his stuff in your back garden or in the
> > street. He has no incentive to do anything about his waste problem, and
> > nobody will bother to collect it without being paid.
> 
> No-one can dump their rubbish on another person's property.


How would you enforce that once the local sanitation services are
privatised?


> > > > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage
> > >ceremonies;
> > >
> > > You have to pay to access these services already.
> >
> > So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
> > abolished?
> 
> A private company?


I see. Perhaps you think the District Court should be run by a private
concern also?


> > > > > My kids are looked after by their mother.
> > > >
> > > > That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by
> > > > the vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District
> > > > Court, are mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time
> > > > for some private fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but
> > > > unfortunately next door don't have any fire insurance: so that's
> > > > alright if their house burns down I suppose.
> > >
> > > That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
> > > bill them.
> >
> > If you examine history, I think you'll find that this did not happen.
> > Those without insurance were left to burn. That's why private fire
> > brigades were abolished in favour of the current model of local
> > government run emergency services.
> 
> I'm in a semi-detached house. My insurance would cover this contingency.


You'd better hope so. Premiums for those living adjacent to uninsured
properties would no doubt rise considerably.


> > > > Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of
> > > > homeless beggars and vicious stray dogs.
> > >
> > > And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
> > > in what way?
> >
> > When was the last time you walked in a public park in Edinburgh?
> 
> A couple of weeks ago. They are shocking.


Nonsense. Public parks in Edinburgh are well looked after.


> > > > That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like
> > > > the ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance
> > >
> > > And this would be different from the current state of the roads in
> > > what way?
> >
> > You really should try a journey on some roads in countries outside
> > Western Europe, North America or Japan/Hong Kong/Singapore. It's a real
> > eye-opener on what happens when not enough money is spent on maintaining
> > them.
> 
> I can assure you that there's no need to go abroad to experience that.


The only times I've experienced poor roads in Edinburgh lately have been
where private utility companies have dug up the road several times over
in an unco-ordinated fashion. That's the efficiency of the marketplace
for you.


> > > > Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> > > > security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten
> > > > into the spare cash.
> > >
> > > You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if
> > > they were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is
> > > already effectively private. What makes you think that the private
> > > sector can't do a better job of all the others?
> >
> > I suppose you think that the UK rail system is a trailblazing example of
> > the benefits of the private sector running things?
> 
> The railways were not privatised. (For any meaningful value of
> privatisation). The best thing to do there would have been to sell the
> assets to the private sector and see what they made of them.


I see. Yes, perhaps they would have made a fantastic success out of it,
like they did with Eurotunnel? How many times have they had to
restructure the colossal debt again? How close is Eurotunnel to
financial collapse?


> > Or perhaps you prefer the example of the private pensions industry?
> 
> I trust them more than I trust the government. Unfortunately I'm denied a
> choice in the matter.


But according to your philosophy the market is supposed to provide
choice. Are you saying the market has failed you?


> If government provision is so great why do they insist on making it
> compulsory?


It's called re-distribution of wealth.


> > Maybe you thought endowment mortgages were a great deal?
> 
> Nope, I never did. Still having seen the state of public housing I'd take
> an endowment over a council house any day.


Straw man. People who can afford a mortgage are unlikely to need social
or publicly provided housing. Believe it or not there are people who
cannot afford a mortgage.
 

> > And you probably believe that the short stay parking charges for the new
> > ERI at Little France are really reasonable, and a fair way for the PFI
> > contractor to earn a bob or two from hospital "customers" on top of the
> > rent and service charges the NHS is paying. That'll be why the roads
> > near to the hospital are so clogged with cars avoiding the charges that
> > ambulances and fire engines have difficulty getting through. Wow! Isn't
> > the private sector efficient at providing "solutions"?
> 
> The parking charges at the new ERI are designed to stop people parking
> there because the council wants to stop people driving there. The
> Murrayfield hospital has ample parking but then again it's a private
> operation and understands what its customers want.


I think you'll find that the PFI contractor (a private operation) levies
the parking charges, not the council. There's plenty of parking space at
ERI, it's just so expensive people don't want to pay.
 

> > > > > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money.
> > > > > That way I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not
> > > > > whatever the numpties at the council think I need.
> > > >
> > > > Current prices for decent private schools are around 7,000 per term
> > > > per child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education
> > > > providers with no free, state funded competition expect fees to
> > > > rise. Maybe Mum will have to go out to work so you can afford the
> > > > fees? That's if you can get a place at all.
> > >
> > > There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
> > > that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group
> > > of parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.
> >
> > How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
> > council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?
> 
> So the council has some weird money-making machine that I don't know
> about? Could it be that you're confusing a short-term cost with a lifetime
> of contibutions?


The point is that taxation, whether locally raised or not, pays for free
education for children. Everyone pays, even those without children, as
free education benefits society. Once you remove that situation,
children's education is limited by ability to pay, increasing
inequalities and polarising society between haves and have nots.

Netizen wrote:

> > Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
> > you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
> > them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?
>
> The hypothesis was ridiculous because your proposition was ridiculous:


What's so ridiculous about people keeping their own money and spending
it as they see fit?


> Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700
> From: "Anthony Cunningham" 
>
> > I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> > in the local economy as I se fit.
>
> For good measure, you went on to calculate exactly how much money that
> would save you every month. My point was to show what services would be
> lost if everyone decided to do as you suggest. You can't have it both
> ways: if you privatise the public sphere you have to face the
> consequences.


And the consequences would be nowhere like the Mad Max scenario that
you envisaged.


> > > That would mean no public libraries or parks;
> >
> > The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
> > and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
> > either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
> > I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.
>
> The "I'm alright Jack" approach to public education I see.


Sigh, the libraries stopped being a part of public education a long
time ago. Or do you regard Archer and Cookson as being of educational
value?


> Presumably with this philosophy, you'll also be installing your own
> clean water supply collecting and filtering rainwater on your roof, and
> your own septic tank for sewage, all at your own expense. After all, why
> should everyone else subsidise your shit by allowing it into the public
> network?


Why should I subsidise your shit?


> > As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
> > gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.
>
> Indeed there are private gardens, but unless you happen to be wealthy
> enough to own property adjacent to them, you'll be denied access.


That keeps the neds out. Face it, if you want quality services and
amenities you'll have to pay for them one way or another.


> Perhaps you would have preferred it if the Earls of Haddington had kept
> their rights to the Queen's Park/Holyrood Park? They could have
> profitably quarried all that stone, and erected a large fence to keep
> the likes of you and me out of their grounds. How very beneficial to
> everyone, but especially to the Earls!


Well bugger me blind; what's wrong with people disposing of their
property as they see fit?


> > > no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls;
> > > no local sports facilities except
> > > for those in private ownership;
> >
> > And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
> > places do this and it seems to work for them.
>
> Such as?


Most of the US.


> > > no state provision of children's
> > > education; no fire brigade; no local transport expenditure (just
> > > motorways and railways would be funded directly by central government> > > no social work provision;
> >
> > What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
> > alsation lets go of your kids eventually.
>
> Do you have personal experience of social workers taking your kids away?
> That might explain certain views you hold.


No just what I read in the papers.



> So saving money is the universal panacea that will cure society's ills?


No, stopping politicians wasting our money is a good idea. There will
always be ills in society; it's just the hopeless collectivists that
like to imagine that if they take enough of our property then they can
build a paradise.


> While you are at it you can just persuade the police to round the
> "economically inactive" up into concentration camps and get them to work
> productively for private companies in return for meagre rations, instead
> of cluttering the streets. And if some of them die from overwork, well
> their clothes, fillings etc. can all be recycled and their bodies can
> even be turned into soap! All for a tidy profit. Very cost-effective
> "solution" to those pesky social problems. No doubt you'll be rushing to
> invest in such a scheme - a sure fire earner. Hang on, didn't some
> people try something similar before? Between 1933 and 1945? Better check
> if you can license the IP.


And I invoke Godwin's law here. You lose.


> There is difference between tendering out of contracts for a service and
> a direct service contract relationship with the rubbish producer. How
> would rubbish removal work under your 'no local government' system? You
> might pay for a company to remove yours, but if your neighbour fancies
> saving money he can just dump his stuff in your back garden or in the
> street. He has no incentive to do anything about his waste problem, and
> nobody will bother to collect it without being paid.


No-one can dump their rubbish on another person's property.


> > > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage ceremonies;
> >
> > You have to pay to access these services already.
>
> So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
> abolished?


A private company?


> > > > My kids are looked after by their mother.
> > >
> > > That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by the
> > > vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District Court, are
> > > mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time for some private
> > > fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but unfortunately next door
> > > don't have any fire insurance: so that's alright if their house burns
> > > down I suppose.
> >
> > That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
> > bill them.
>
> If you examine history, I think you'll find that this did not happen.
> Those without insurance were left to burn. That's why private fire
> brigades were abolished in favour of the current model of local
> government run emergency services.


I'm in a semi-detached house. My insurance would cover this
contingency.


> > > Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of homeless
> > > beggars and vicious stray dogs.
> >
> > And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
> > in what way?
>
> When was the last time you walked in a public park in Edinburgh?


A couple of weeks ago. They are shocking.


> > > That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like the
> > > ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance
> >
> > And this would be different from the current state of the roads in what
> > way?
>
> You really should try a journey on some roads in countries outside
> Western Europe, North America or Japan/Hong Kong/Singapore. It's a real
> eye-opener on what happens when not enough money is spent on maintaining
> them.


I can assure you that there's no need to go abroad to experience that.


> > > Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> > > security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten into
> > > the spare cash.
> >
> > You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if they
> > were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is already
> > effectively private. What makes you think that the private sector can't
> > do a better job of all the others?
>
> I suppose you think that the UK rail system is a trailblazing example of
> the benefits of the private sector running things?


The railways were not privatised. (For any meaningful value of
privatisation). The best thing to do there would have been to sell the
assets to the private sector and see what they made of them.


> Or perhaps you prefer the example of the private pensions industry?


I trust them more than I trust the government. Unfortunately I'm denied
a choice in the matter.

If government provision is so great why do they insist on making it
compulsory?


> Maybe you thought endowment mortgages were a great deal?


Nope, I never did. Still having seen the state of public housing I'd
take an endowment over a council house any day.


> And you probably believe that the short stay parking charges for the new
> ERI at Little France are really reasonable, and a fair way for the PFI
> contractor to earn a bob or two from hospital "customers" on top of the
> rent and service charges the NHS is paying. That'll be why the roads
> near to the hospital are so clogged with cars avoiding the charges that
> ambulances and fire engines have difficulty getting through. Wow! Isn't
> the private sector efficient at providing "solutions"?


The parking charges at the new ERI are designed to stop people parking
there because the council wants to stop people driving there. The
Murrayfield hospital has ample parking but then again it's a private
operation and understands what its customers want.


> > > > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money. That way
> > > > I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not whatever the
> > > > numpties at the council think I need.
> > >
> > > Current prices for decent private schools are around £7,000 per term per
> > > child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education providers
> > > with no free, state funded competition expect fees to rise. Maybe Mum
> > > will have to go out to work so you can afford the fees? That's if you
> > > can get a place at all.
> >
> > There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
> > that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group of
> > parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.
>
> How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
> council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?


So the council has some weird money-making machine that I don't know
about? Could it be that you're confusing a short-term cost with a
lifetime of contibutions?

Anthony Cunningham  wrote:


> Netizen wrote: 
>
> > >Well the original hypothetical situation was ridiculous anyway. If
> > >you're such a fan of the council spending out money then why not have
> > >them take all our wages and spend them for us as they see fit?
>
> >The hypothesis was ridiculous because your proposition was
> >ridiculous:
> 
> What's so ridiculous about people keeping their own money and spending it
> as they see fit?


You earn "your" money in exchange for your labour, unless you inherited
it or earned it through investments. So unless you already have money,
you generally need to supply your labour to an endeavour in order to
obtain some. This social convention makes our economic model possible.

Another social convention is that those who are unable to supply labour
to the workforce (whether through illness, disability, age or a lack of
employable skills) are provided for by redistributing money from those
who can. In most societies, this is the role of government and the
public sphere.

If you remove these conventions by privatising the public sector, rather
than creating some private sector utopia you may instead find that the
conventions that allow you to freely exchange your labour for money also
break down due to pressure from those disadvantaged by the
privatisation: concepts such as the rule of law, fair dealing, etc. may
begin to evaporate when there is "no alternative" to the private sector.



> > Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700 From: "Anthony Cunningham"
> > 
> >
> > > I'd rather the council stopped taking my money off me and let me spend
> > > in the local economy as I se fit.
> >
> > For good measure, you went on to calculate exactly how much money that
> > would save you every month. My point was to show what services would be
> > lost if everyone decided to do as you suggest. You can't have it both
> > ways: if you privatise the public sphere you have to face the
> > consequences.
> 
> And the consequences would be nowhere like the Mad Max scenario that you
> envisaged.


Can you prove otherwise?


> > > > That would mean no public libraries or parks;
> > >
> > > The libraries largely exist to lend out the latest Catherine Cookson
> > > and Jeffrey Archer novels (If I can use that word in connection with
> > > either of those authors). We have plenty of bookshops in Edinburgh and
> > > I see no reason to subsidise other peoples' reading habits.
> >
> > The "I'm alright Jack" approach to public education I see.
> 
> Sigh, the libraries stopped being a part of public education a long time
> ago. Or do you regard Archer and Cookson as being of educational value?


That's relative to the level of education of the reader. To assert that
libraries are no longer a part of public education is simply fallacious.


> > > As for the parks; Edinburgh has a number of very pleasant private
> > > gardens. The public parks are just gathering spots for neds.
> >
> > Indeed there are private gardens, but unless you happen to be wealthy
> > enough to own property adjacent to them, you'll be denied access.
> 
> That keeps the neds out. Face it, if you want quality services and
> amenities you'll have to pay for them one way or another.


True, but in your model there would be no universal provision of
services. Once you privatise every local service to the level of
individual choices, the provision of services would become chaotic in
its variability. Hardly a recipe for social stability, which is usually
necessary for a market economy model to function properly.


> > Perhaps you would have preferred it if the Earls of Haddington had kept
> > their rights to the Queen's Park/Holyrood Park? They could have
> > profitably quarried all that stone, and erected a large fence to keep
> > the likes of you and me out of their grounds. How very beneficial to
> > everyone, but especially to the Earls!
> 
> Well bugger me blind; what's wrong with people disposing of their property
> as they see fit?


It depends upon how they obtained the property in the first place. Are
you suggesting we revert to feudalism? You might find your idealised
market in services severely hampered by the power of extremely wealthy
individuals.


> > > > no local museums, galleries, theatres or concert halls; no local
> > > > sports facilities except for those in private ownership;
> > >
> > > And what's so bad about these facilities being in private hands? Other
> > > places do this and it seems to work for them.
> >
> > Such as?
> 
> Most of the US.


That's another fallacy, often repeated about the USA. Public sector
service provision is still a large part of the US economy, at local,
state and federal levels. Many other services, especially cultural ones,
are provided by non-profit organisations, so as not to be liable for
taxation: the equivalent of UK charities.

This is not the same as these services being "in private hands".


> > > > no state provision of children's education; no fire brigade; no
> > > > local transport expenditure (just motorways and railways would be
> > > > funded directly by central government); no social work provision;
> > >
> > > What's the difference between a social work and an alsatian? An
> > > alsation lets go of your kids eventually.
> >
> > Do you have personal experience of social workers taking your kids away?
> > That might explain certain views you hold.
> 
> No just what I read in the papers.


I'm guessing you're a Daily Mail reader.


> > So saving money is the universal panacea that will cure society's ills?
> 
> No, stopping politicians wasting our money is a good idea. There will
> always be ills in society; it's just the hopeless collectivists that like
> to imagine that if they take enough of our property then they can build a
> paradise.


I see. Hopeless collectivists like David McLetchie? Do you think he was
building a paradise through his taxi journeys? He was certainly wasting
our money. Or perhaps the hopeless collectivist John Major, instigator
of the Millenium Dome?

The problem with your type is that you preach the gospel of the free
market, but when it comes down to it you still have your snout in the
trough of public cash.


> And I invoke Godwin's law here. You lose.


Well, that's not the effect of invoking Godwin's law. I refer you to
Miller's paradox and Guy's corollary.


> > There is difference between tendering out of contracts for a service and
> > a direct service contract relationship with the rubbish producer. How
> > would rubbish removal work under your 'no local government' system? You
> > might pay for a company to remove yours, but if your neighbour fancies
> > saving money he can just dump his stuff in your back garden or in the
> > street. He has no incentive to do anything about his waste problem, and
> > nobody will bother to collect it without being paid.
> 
> No-one can dump their rubbish on another person's property.


How would you enforce that once the local sanitation services are
privatised?


> > > > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage
> > >ceremonies;
> > >
> > > You have to pay to access these services already.
> >
> > So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
> > abolished?
> 
> A private company?


I see. Perhaps you think the District Court should be run by a private
concern also?


> > > > > My kids are looked after by their mother.
> > > >
> > > > That's great. Good for you. But when your house is set on fire by
> > > > the vandals who were not sentenced by the non-existent District
> > > > Court, are mum and the kids going to cope okay on their own? Time
> > > > for some private fire insurance, just like the old days. Ah, but
> > > > unfortunately next door don't have any fire insurance: so that's
> > > > alright if their house burns down I suppose.
> > >
> > > That's their problem. I expect my insurers would put the fire out and
> > > bill them.
> >
> > If you examine history, I think you'll find that this did not happen.
> > Those without insurance were left to burn. That's why private fire
> > brigades were abolished in favour of the current model of local
> > government run emergency services.
> 
> I'm in a semi-detached house. My insurance would cover this contingency.


You'd better hope so. Premiums for those living adjacent to uninsured
properties would no doubt rise considerably.


> > > > Oh, and maybe best not go out to the local park, it's full of
> > > > homeless beggars and vicious stray dogs.
> > >
> > > And this would be different from the current state of the public parks
> > > in what way?
> >
> > When was the last time you walked in a public park in Edinburgh?
> 
> A couple of weeks ago. They are shocking.


Nonsense. Public parks in Edinburgh are well looked after.


> > > > That's super. But after about six months, the roads will look like
> > > > the ones in central Fallujah due to lack of maintenance
> > >
> > > And this would be different from the current state of the roads in
> > > what way?
> >
> > You really should try a journey on some roads in countries outside
> > Western Europe, North America or Japan/Hong Kong/Singapore. It's a real
> > eye-opener on what happens when not enough money is spent on maintaining
> > them.
> 
> I can assure you that there's no need to go abroad to experience that.


The only times I've experienced poor roads in Edinburgh lately have been
where private utility companies have dug up the road several times over
in an unco-ordinated fashion. That's the efficiency of the marketplace
for you.


> > > > Probably unlikely as the private fire brigade insurance, increased
> > > > security required and private water and sewage provision have eaten
> > > > into the spare cash.
> > >
> > > You make the assumption that all these services would cost more if
> > > they were coming from the private sector. The rubbish collection is
> > > already effectively private. What makes you think that the private
> > > sector can't do a better job of all the others?
> >
> > I suppose you think that the UK rail system is a trailblazing example of
> > the benefits of the private sector running things?
> 
> The railways were not privatised. (For any meaningful value of
> privatisation). The best thing to do there would have been to sell the
> assets to the private sector and see what they made of them.


I see. Yes, perhaps they would have made a fantastic success out of it,
like they did with Eurotunnel? How many times have they had to
restructure the colossal debt again? How close is Eurotunnel to
financial collapse?


> > Or perhaps you prefer the example of the private pensions industry?
> 
> I trust them more than I trust the government. Unfortunately I'm denied a
> choice in the matter.


But according to your philosophy the market is supposed to provide
choice. Are you saying the market has failed you?


> If government provision is so great why do they insist on making it
> compulsory?


It's called re-distribution of wealth.


> > Maybe you thought endowment mortgages were a great deal?
> 
> Nope, I never did. Still having seen the state of public housing I'd take
> an endowment over a council house any day.


Straw man. People who can afford a mortgage are unlikely to need social
or publicly provided housing. Believe it or not there are people who
cannot afford a mortgage.
 

> > And you probably believe that the short stay parking charges for the new
> > ERI at Little France are really reasonable, and a fair way for the PFI
> > contractor to earn a bob or two from hospital "customers" on top of the
> > rent and service charges the NHS is paying. That'll be why the roads
> > near to the hospital are so clogged with cars avoiding the charges that
> > ambulances and fire engines have difficulty getting through. Wow! Isn't
> > the private sector efficient at providing "solutions"?
> 
> The parking charges at the new ERI are designed to stop people parking
> there because the council wants to stop people driving there. The
> Murrayfield hospital has ample parking but then again it's a private
> operation and understands what its customers want.


I think you'll find that the PFI contractor (a private operation) levies
the parking charges, not the council. There's plenty of parking space at
ERI, it's just so expensive people don't want to pay.
 

> > > > > Well I'd rather pay for what I use myself out of my own money.
> > > > > That way I get a choice of which school I send my kids to and not
> > > > > whatever the numpties at the council think I need.
> > > >
> > > > Current prices for decent private schools are around 7,000 per term
> > > > per child. 3 terms per year. If they become the only education
> > > > providers with no free, state funded competition expect fees to
> > > > rise. Maybe Mum will have to go out to work so you can afford the
> > > > fees? That's if you can get a place at all.
> > >
> > > There will be plenty of school buildings going for sale and I expect
> > > that a private company would take them over and run them. Or a group
> > > of parents. I'd trust them more than the loons on the council.
> >
> > How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
> > council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?
> 
> So the council has some weird money-making machine that I don't know
> about? Could it be that you're confusing a short-term cost with a lifetime
> of contibutions?


The point is that taxation, whether locally raised or not, pays for free
education for children. Everyone pays, even those without children, as
free education benefits society. Once you remove that situation,
children's education is limited by ability to pay, increasing
inequalities and polarising society between haves and have nots.

Netizen wrote:

> Anthony Cunningham  wrote:

> > What's so ridiculous about people keeping their own money and spending it
> > as they see fit?
>
> You earn "your" money in exchange for your labour, unless you inherited
> it or earned it through investments. So unless you already have money,
> you generally need to supply your labour to an endeavour in order to
> obtain some. This social convention makes our economic model possible.
>
> Another social convention is that those who are unable to supply labour
> to the workforce (whether through illness, disability, age or a lack of
> employable skills) are provided for by redistributing money from those
> who can. In most societies, this is the role of government and the
> public sphere.


You conflate two separate social conventions and try to pretend that
one depends upon the other. Nice try but that wont wash.

In any case, social conventions are just that, conventions. They come
and go.


> If you remove these conventions by privatising the public sector, rather
> than creating some private sector utopia you may instead find that the
> conventions that allow you to freely exchange your labour for money also
> break down due to pressure from those disadvantaged by the
> privatisation: concepts such as the rule of law, fair dealing, etc. may
> begin to evaporate when there is "no alternative" to the private sector.


All I want is to remove the convention that allows the state to
confiscate my income and property. You still haven't said why they
should.


> > > Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700 From: "Anthony Cunningham"
> > > 
> > >
> > And the consequences would be nowhere like the Mad Max scenario that you
> > envisaged.
>
> Can you prove otherwise?


It's your scenario; you have to prove that it would.


> > Sigh, the libraries stopped being a part of public education a long time
> > ago. Or do you regard Archer and Cookson as being of educational value?
>
> That's relative to the level of education of the reader. To assert that
> libraries are no longer a part of public education is simply fallacious.


No it isn't. Handing out cheap fiction to those too lazy or
tight-fisted to buy their own books is hardly education.


> > That keeps the neds out. Face it, if you want quality services and
> > amenities you'll have to pay for them one way or another.
>
> True, but in your model there would be no universal provision of
> services.


Why do we need universal state provision? The private sector can
provide parks at the level that people want and are prepared to pay
for.


> Once you privatise every local service to the level of
> individual choices, the provision of services would become chaotic in
> its variability.


Another naked assertion without any foundation. The private sector can
provide a stable supply of food, (Which is basic necessity for us all.)
why not let it deal with other areas of public demand?


> > Well bugger me blind; what's wrong with people disposing of their property
> > as they see fit?
>
> It depends upon how they obtained the property in the first place. Are
> you suggesting we revert to feudalism? You might find your idealised
> market in services severely hampered by the power of extremely wealthy
> individuals.


I haven't suggested that we abandon the rule of law or property rights.
On the contrary I'm all in favour of the state being stripped of its
power to override these rights.


> Many other services, especially cultural ones,
> are provided by non-profit organisations, so as not to be liable for
> taxation: the equivalent of UK charities.


If they can do this then why do we need the state to do it?


> This is not the same as these services being "in private hands".


By private I mean non-state.


> > No just what I read in the papers.
>
> I'm guessing you're a Daily Mail reader.


Then you would be wrong but I expect that you're used to that by now.


> > No, stopping politicians wasting our money is a good idea. There will
> > always be ills in society; it's just the hopeless collectivists that like
> > to imagine that if they take enough of our property then they can build a
> > paradise.
>
> I see. Hopeless collectivists like David McLetchie? Do you think he was
> building a paradise through his taxi journeys? He was certainly wasting
> our money. Or perhaps the hopeless collectivist John Major, instigator
> of the Millenium Dome?


And that's what you get when you allow politicians to confiscate your
money and spend it as they see fit. That's what I want to stop. I'm
constantly amazed that the statists don't accept that this kind of
waste and corruption is an inevitable consequence of their policies.


> The problem with your type is that you preach the gospel of the free
> market, but when it comes down to it you still have your snout in the
> trough of public cash.


Sadly not. I only wish I had an MSPs pension, expenses and salary.
Sadly my money is taken from me to pay them and you seem to think it's
a good idea.



> > No-one can dump their rubbish on another person's property.
>
> How would you enforce that once the local sanitation services are
> privatised?


Sigh, once again for the hard of understanding: property rights. Not
that I would expect a collectivist to understand the concept.


> > > > > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage
> > > >ceremonies;
> > > >
> > > > You have to pay to access these services already.
> > >
> > > So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
> > > abolished?
> >
> > A private company?
>
> I see. Perhaps you think the District Court should be run by a private
> concern also?


Sigh, district courts have nothing to do with the functions of the
registrar.


> > I'm in a semi-detached house. My insurance would cover this contingency.
>
> You'd better hope so. Premiums for those living adjacent to uninsured
> properties would no doubt rise considerably.


Why should they?


> Nonsense. Public parks in Edinburgh are well looked after.


Cobblers. They are places for the local neds to drink their alcopops.



> > I can assure you that there's no need to go abroad to experience that.
>
> The only times I've experienced poor roads in Edinburgh lately have been
> where private utility companies have dug up the road several times over
> in an unco-ordinated fashion. That's the efficiency of the marketplace
> for you.


You obviously haven't driven round Edinburgh recently. It's official
that we have the worst roads in Scotland.


> > The railways were not privatised. (For any meaningful value of
> > privatisation). The best thing to do there would have been to sell the
> > assets to the private sector and see what they made of them.
>
> I see. Yes, perhaps they would have made a fantastic success out of it,
> like they did with Eurotunnel? How many times have they had to
> restructure the colossal debt again? How close is Eurotunnel to
> financial collapse?


Once again you try to move the argument to a different example. And
once again it's an example that proves my case. Eurotunnel's financial
problems only trouble its shareholders. They took a risk and they lost.
I'm not required to bale them out as I would have been with a state-run
project.


> > > Or perhaps you prefer the example of the private pensions industry?
> >
> > I trust them more than I trust the government. Unfortunately I'm denied a
> > choice in the matter.
>
> But according to your philosophy the market is supposed to provide
> choice. Are you saying the market has failed you?


Is there no end to your stupidity? The government forces me to pay into
its pension scheme. I'm denied the choice of how to save for my
retirement as I no longer have as much money to save or spend as I
would have without state interference.


> > If government provision is so great why do they insist on making it
> > compulsory?
>
> It's called re-distribution of wealth.


So it's nothing to do with my benefit; it's just an ideological con
job.


> > > Maybe you thought endowment mortgages were a great deal?
> >
> > Nope, I never did. Still having seen the state of public housing I'd take
> > an endowment over a council house any day.
>
> Straw man. People who can afford a mortgage are unlikely to need social
> or publicly provided housing. Believe it or not there are people who
> cannot afford a mortgage.


Nothing to do with straw men. You asked a question and I answered.
Social housing is a relatively new provision. People had homes before
it and there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't have homes if it
was abolished.


> > The parking charges at the new ERI are designed to stop people parking
> > there because the council wants to stop people driving there. The
> > Murrayfield hospital has ample parking but then again it's a private
> > operation and understands what its customers want.
>
> I think you'll find that the PFI contractor (a private operation) levies
> the parking charges, not the council. There's plenty of parking space at
> ERI, it's just so expensive people don't want to pay.


I think you'll find that, as with so many other assertions that you've
made, you're wrong.


> > > How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
> > > council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?
> >
> > So the council has some weird money-making machine that I don't know
> > about? Could it be that you're confusing a short-term cost with a lifetime
> > of contibutions?
>
> The point is that taxation, whether locally raised or not, pays for free
> education for children. Everyone pays, even those without children, as
> free education benefits society.


So I was right. You *were* confusing a short-term cost with a lifetime
contibutions and you're moving the ground agin to try and cover up.


> Once you remove that situation,
> children's education is limited by ability to pay, increasing
> inequalities and polarising society between haves and have nots.


Everything is limited by ability to pay.

Netizen wrote:

> Anthony Cunningham  wrote:

> > What's so ridiculous about people keeping their own money and spending it
> > as they see fit?
>
> You earn "your" money in exchange for your labour, unless you inherited
> it or earned it through investments. So unless you already have money,
> you generally need to supply your labour to an endeavour in order to
> obtain some. This social convention makes our economic model possible.
>
> Another social convention is that those who are unable to supply labour
> to the workforce (whether through illness, disability, age or a lack of
> employable skills) are provided for by redistributing money from those
> who can. In most societies, this is the role of government and the
> public sphere.


You conflate two separate social conventions and try to pretend that
one depends upon the other. Nice try but that wont wash.

In any case, social conventions are just that, conventions. They come
and go.


> If you remove these conventions by privatising the public sector, rather
> than creating some private sector utopia you may instead find that the
> conventions that allow you to freely exchange your labour for money also
> break down due to pressure from those disadvantaged by the
> privatisation: concepts such as the rule of law, fair dealing, etc. may
> begin to evaporate when there is "no alternative" to the private sector.


All I want is to remove the convention that allows the state to
confiscate my income and property. You still haven't said why they
should.


> > > Date: 28 Oct 2005 04:01:29 -0700 From: "Anthony Cunningham"
> > > 
> > >
> > And the consequences would be nowhere like the Mad Max scenario that you
> > envisaged.
>
> Can you prove otherwise?


It's your scenario; you have to prove that it would.


> > Sigh, the libraries stopped being a part of public education a long time
> > ago. Or do you regard Archer and Cookson as being of educational value?
>
> That's relative to the level of education of the reader. To assert that
> libraries are no longer a part of public education is simply fallacious.


No it isn't. Handing out cheap fiction to those too lazy or
tight-fisted to buy their own books is hardly education.


> > That keeps the neds out. Face it, if you want quality services and
> > amenities you'll have to pay for them one way or another.
>
> True, but in your model there would be no universal provision of
> services.


Why do we need universal state provision? The private sector can
provide parks at the level that people want and are prepared to pay
for.


> Once you privatise every local service to the level of
> individual choices, the provision of services would become chaotic in
> its variability.


Another naked assertion without any foundation. The private sector can
provide a stable supply of food, (Which is basic necessity for us all.)
why not let it deal with other areas of public demand?


> > Well bugger me blind; what's wrong with people disposing of their property
> > as they see fit?
>
> It depends upon how they obtained the property in the first place. Are
> you suggesting we revert to feudalism? You might find your idealised
> market in services severely hampered by the power of extremely wealthy
> individuals.


I haven't suggested that we abandon the rule of law or property rights.
On the contrary I'm all in favour of the state being stripped of its
power to override these rights.


> Many other services, especially cultural ones,
> are provided by non-profit organisations, so as not to be liable for
> taxation: the equivalent of UK charities.


If they can do this then why do we need the state to do it?


> This is not the same as these services being "in private hands".


By private I mean non-state.


> > No just what I read in the papers.
>
> I'm guessing you're a Daily Mail reader.


Then you would be wrong but I expect that you're used to that by now.


> > No, stopping politicians wasting our money is a good idea. There will
> > always be ills in society; it's just the hopeless collectivists that like
> > to imagine that if they take enough of our property then they can build a
> > paradise.
>
> I see. Hopeless collectivists like David McLetchie? Do you think he was
> building a paradise through his taxi journeys? He was certainly wasting
> our money. Or perhaps the hopeless collectivist John Major, instigator
> of the Millenium Dome?


And that's what you get when you allow politicians to confiscate your
money and spend it as they see fit. That's what I want to stop. I'm
constantly amazed that the statists don't accept that this kind of
waste and corruption is an inevitable consequence of their policies.


> The problem with your type is that you preach the gospel of the free
> market, but when it comes down to it you still have your snout in the
> trough of public cash.


Sadly not. I only wish I had an MSPs pension, expenses and salary.
Sadly my money is taken from me to pay them and you seem to think it's
a good idea.



> > No-one can dump their rubbish on another person's property.
>
> How would you enforce that once the local sanitation services are
> privatised?


Sigh, once again for the hard of understanding: property rights. Not
that I would expect a collectivist to understand the concept.


> > > > > no registrations of birth, marriage and death, no civil marriage
> > > >ceremonies;
> > > >
> > > > You have to pay to access these services already.
> > >
> > > So what? Who would do the work if local government was effectively
> > > abolished?
> >
> > A private company?
>
> I see. Perhaps you think the District Court should be run by a private
> concern also?


Sigh, district courts have nothing to do with the functions of the
registrar.


> > I'm in a semi-detached house. My insurance would cover this contingency.
>
> You'd better hope so. Premiums for those living adjacent to uninsured
> properties would no doubt rise considerably.


Why should they?


> Nonsense. Public parks in Edinburgh are well looked after.


Cobblers. They are places for the local neds to drink their alcopops.



> > I can assure you that there's no need to go abroad to experience that.
>
> The only times I've experienced poor roads in Edinburgh lately have been
> where private utility companies have dug up the road several times over
> in an unco-ordinated fashion. That's the efficiency of the marketplace
> for you.


You obviously haven't driven round Edinburgh recently. It's official
that we have the worst roads in Scotland.


> > The railways were not privatised. (For any meaningful value of
> > privatisation). The best thing to do there would have been to sell the
> > assets to the private sector and see what they made of them.
>
> I see. Yes, perhaps they would have made a fantastic success out of it,
> like they did with Eurotunnel? How many times have they had to
> restructure the colossal debt again? How close is Eurotunnel to
> financial collapse?


Once again you try to move the argument to a different example. And
once again it's an example that proves my case. Eurotunnel's financial
problems only trouble its shareholders. They took a risk and they lost.
I'm not required to bale them out as I would have been with a state-run
project.


> > > Or perhaps you prefer the example of the private pensions industry?
> >
> > I trust them more than I trust the government. Unfortunately I'm denied a
> > choice in the matter.
>
> But according to your philosophy the market is supposed to provide
> choice. Are you saying the market has failed you?


Is there no end to your stupidity? The government forces me to pay into
its pension scheme. I'm denied the choice of how to save for my
retirement as I no longer have as much money to save or spend as I
would have without state interference.


> > If government provision is so great why do they insist on making it
> > compulsory?
>
> It's called re-distribution of wealth.


So it's nothing to do with my benefit; it's just an ideological con
job.


> > > Maybe you thought endowment mortgages were a great deal?
> >
> > Nope, I never did. Still having seen the state of public housing I'd take
> > an endowment over a council house any day.
>
> Straw man. People who can afford a mortgage are unlikely to need social
> or publicly provided housing. Believe it or not there are people who
> cannot afford a mortgage.


Nothing to do with straw men. You asked a question and I answered.
Social housing is a relatively new provision. People had homes before
it and there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't have homes if it
was abolished.


> > The parking charges at the new ERI are designed to stop people parking
> > there because the council wants to stop people driving there. The
> > Murrayfield hospital has ample parking but then again it's a private
> > operation and understands what its customers want.
>
> I think you'll find that the PFI contractor (a private operation) levies
> the parking charges, not the council. There's plenty of parking space at
> ERI, it's just so expensive people don't want to pay.


I think you'll find that, as with so many other assertions that you've
made, you're wrong.


> > > How does that change the fact you'll have to find a lot more than your
> > > council tax bill every month to pay for your children's education?
> >
> > So the council has some weird money-making machine that I don't know
> > about? Could it be that you're confusing a short-term cost with a lifetime
> > of contibutions?
>
> The point is that taxation, whether locally raised or not, pays for free
> education for children. Everyone pays, even those without children, as
> free education benefits society.


So I was right. You *were* confusing a short-term cost with a lifetime
contibutions and you're moving the ground agin to try and cover up.


> Once you remove that situation,
> children's education is limited by ability to pay, increasing
> inequalities and polarising society between haves and have nots.


Everything is limited by ability to pay.