# Fuel duty cut will cost £500,000,000



## mickle (26 Jun 2012)

Who voted these fricking amateurs into government? They are completely out of control.


----------



## derrick (26 Jun 2012)

It was not me.


----------



## slowmotion (27 Jun 2012)

*Fuel duty cut will cost £500,000,000.*

I missed this story. Who is it costing half a billion?


----------



## lordloveaduck (27 Jun 2012)

Someone needs a Wonga loan!


----------



## redcard (27 Jun 2012)

It's a nice round number. Very convenient!


----------



## DRHysted (27 Jun 2012)

And fuel duty increase will cost the general public more than that, because everything uses fuel at some point, even our bikes need to get delivered before we can buy them.

The idiots that throw these headlines at us annoy me, due to their short sightedness.


----------



## berty bassett (27 Jun 2012)

MEEEE i voted them in ! And honestly - i would do it again ! all they are doing is noticing the country is skint so trying to claw money back just the same as most families do when the pot is empty . common sense says if you you keep on spending when you have no money its only a matter of time before it catches up with you - and while i am in political rant mode - no - it ain't fair that non workers can be better off than workers after a multitude of benefits or that they get money thrown at them for having kids . i made the decision that i couldn't afford anymore kids - and i work hard - people need to be made to pay for their choices . we all know spongers who have no intention of working just knocking out kids and they seem to have all the money to be sitting in the sun outside pubs smoking . i was speaking to a foreign ex-worker - she said she loved this country - you get paid to have babies ! - not her fault - ours - the whole system is wrong and needs changing but no-one will do it cos its political suicide as so many are on the band wagon now - where will it end - workers will only get small pay rises - non workers will say this aint fair so they will get pay rises meaning workers need to be taxed more so they are slightly worse of - this will keep on happening till the worker says hang on - i will be better off not working and once enough workers think that then the country is sunk ! why not prop up poorly paid jobs with half benefits - therefore making it a decent paid job and getting tax back while also saving in benefits - and at the same time reducing benefits to people who cant be bothered to work as the money is rolling in . i know of one person who openly said i aint working no more cos its for mugs - and hes milking the system - he ain't the only one -- there thats set me mood for the day


----------



## Red Light (27 Jun 2012)

What I find amusing is the planned rise was a left over from the last Labour Government, Ed Balls then decides the idea is now a bad one, the Government follows his advice on his policy and Ed then accuses them of doing a U-turn.


----------



## mickle (27 Jun 2012)

berty bassett said:


> MEEEE i voted them in ! And honestly - i would do it again ! all they are doing is noticing the country is skint so trying to claw money back just the same as most families do when the pot is empty . common sense says if you you keep on spending when you have no money its only a matter of time before it catches up with you - and while i am in political rant mode - no - it ain't fair that non workers can be better off than workers after a multitude of benefits or that they get money thrown at them for having kids . i made the decision that i couldn't afford anymore kids - and i work hard - people need to be made to pay for their choices . we all know spongers who have no intention of working just knocking out kids and they seem to have all the money to be sitting in the sun outside pubs smoking . i was speaking to a foreign ex-worker - she said she loved this country - you get paid to have babies ! - not her fault - ours - the whole system is wrong and needs changing but no-one will do it cos its political suicide as so many are on the band wagon now - where will it end - workers will only get small pay rises - non workers will say this aint fair so they will get pay rises meaning workers need to be taxed more so they are slightly worse of - this will keep on happening till the worker says hang on - i will be better off not working and once enough workers think that then the country is sunk ! why not prop up poorly paid jobs with half benefits - therefore making it a decent paid job and getting tax back while also saving in benefits - and at the same time reducing benefits to people who cant be bothered to work as the money is rolling in . i know of one person who openly said i aint working no more cos its for mugs - and hes milking the system - he ain't the only one -- there thats set me mood for the day



Yawn.


----------



## srw (27 Jun 2012)

mickle said:


> Yawn.


It's nice to know we've got some intelligent, articulate voters in the country, isn't it mickle?


----------



## Andrew_Culture (27 Jun 2012)

Is anyone else thinking of using this rise in fuel duty to justify spending more money on their commuting bike?


----------



## al78 (27 Jun 2012)

berty bassett said:


> MEEEE i voted them in ! And honestly - i would do it again ! all they are doing is noticing the country is skint so trying to claw money back just the same as most families do when the pot is empty . common sense says if you you keep on spending when you have no money its only a matter of time before it catches up with you - and while i am in political rant mode - no - it ain't fair that non workers can be better off than workers after a multitude of benefits or that they get money thrown at them for having kids . i made the decision that i couldn't afford anymore kids - and i work hard - people need to be made to pay for their choices . we all know spongers who have no intention of working just knocking out kids and they seem to have all the money to be sitting in the sun outside pubs smoking . i was speaking to a foreign ex-worker - she said she loved this country - you get paid to have babies ! - not her fault - ours - the whole system is wrong and needs changing but no-one will do it cos its political suicide as so many are on the band wagon now - where will it end - workers will only get small pay rises - non workers will say this aint fair so they will get pay rises meaning workers need to be taxed more so they are slightly worse of - this will keep on happening till the worker says hang on - i will be better off not working and once enough workers think that then the country is sunk ! why not prop up poorly paid jobs with half benefits - therefore making it a decent paid job and getting tax back while also saving in benefits - and at the same time reducing benefits to people who cant be bothered to work as the money is rolling in . i know of one person who openly said i aint working no more cos its for mugs - and hes milking the system - he ain't the only one -- there thats set me mood for the day


 
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-broke/

U.S. focused, but I wouldn't be surprised if it applied to the UK as well.


----------



## byegad (27 Jun 2012)

mickle said:


> Who voted these fricking amateurs into government? They are completely out of control.


Not me!

They have exhausted all the Tory plans that the LibDems can stomach and are lost for hat to do next. The U-turns are getting faster and more frequent. It is surely only a matter of time before the coalition implodes.


----------



## Linford (27 Jun 2012)

srw said:


> It's nice to know we've got some intelligent, articulate voters in the country, isn't it mickle?


 
However he put it, there is a degree of truth in what has written. We are still printing money to hide the fact that Government spending is still more than it gets back in taxes. I do think it unfiar to blame the unemployed, as the state workers take far more out per head than those on benefits do.


----------



## mickle (27 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> However he put it, there is a degree of truth in what has written.


 
You don't know me.


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

Sorry but half the motons round here are still flying flags out of their car windows. If they can afford the extra fuel required to put up with the added drag caused by those, they can afford extra fuel duty. Simples.


----------



## Alun (27 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> I do think it unfiar to blame the unemployed, as the state workers take far more out per head than those on benefits do.


Don't you think "state workers" (I assume this includes police, firemen, nurses, etc) should get more than people who are unemployed?
If it were the other way around, surely they would just chuck their hand in and become unemployed themselves?


----------



## Linford (27 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Don't you think "state workers" (I assume this includes police, firemen, nurses, etc) should get more than people who are unemployed?
> If it were the other way around, surely they would just chuck their hand in and become unemployed themselves?


 
State workers are supported by the efforts of the private sector - in the same way that the unemployed are. State workers provide services, but don't create anything of worth for their efforts in terms of monetary value - apart from Customs and Excise who raise tax (off the people who generate the wealth).


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Jun 2012)

As I said the Louise "I'll do anything to get noticed" Mencsh on Twitter - When are we going to see this reflected in public transport fares?

Because obviously what with a ll their "green credentials", I wouldn't want it to look like MPs were desperately trying to win votes by any means.


----------



## Alun (27 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> State workers are supported by the efforts of the private sector - in the same way that the unemployed are. State workers provide services, but don't create anything of worth for their efforts in terms of monetary value - apart from Customs and Excise who raise tax (off the people who generate the wealth).


 You've just quoted some schoolboy economics, you haven't actually answered the question.


----------



## Simon1234 (27 Jun 2012)

1907648 said:


> I think that you will find that it is the other way around, in that without the support of a society wide support network the private sector would struggle to operate at all.



Really? The private sector survived for 1000s of years before the state existed!

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Alun (27 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Really? The private sector survived for 1000s of years before the state existed!
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 I'm struggling to see the relevance of that statement.


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Really? The private sector survived for 1000s of years before the state existed!
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 1,000s of years? Really? Without an army paid for by some kind of central taxation system?


----------



## Simon1234 (27 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> 1,000s of years? Really? Without an army paid for by some kind of central taxation system?


Nope. Fairly recent history...

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Nope. Fairly recent history...
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 I think you'll find that once people decided to settle in one place rather than roam, one of the first things established was a defence system made up of people excused the duty of gathering crops etc. Which puts the setting up of an army before private business.


----------



## Alun (27 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Nope. Fairly recent history...
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 We have had a recognisable "state" system for hundreds of years, what period of history are you referring to?


----------



## Richard Mann (27 Jun 2012)

Clearly someone leaked to Labour that the Treasury was about to do this, and they jumped on the bandwagon.

They should have just stuck to the incompetence line, rather than make a play for the driving vote, but that's politics. This way they probably get a little amuse bouche from the drivers, and a hearty main course of watching a junior minister try to answer the unanswerable on the news programmes. Then a sweet course of calling it "another" U-turn.

I bet they're feeling really smug.


----------



## Simon1234 (27 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> I think you'll find that once people decided to settle in one place rather than roam, one of the first things established was a defence system made up of people excused the duty of gathering crops etc. Which puts the setting up of an army before private business.


Nope. Thats just allocation of resources. Nothing to do with a State. Just my point.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## dawesome (27 Jun 2012)

Watch the lovely Chloe Smith get a thorough Paxman here:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddWaHuxTzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Starts about 6 minutes.


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Nope. Thats just allocation of resources. Nothing to do with a State. Just my point.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 True it's not a state in that it's not a country but it is an example of a public service supported and paid for by the general population of a given area.


----------



## Red Light (27 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but half the motons round here are still flying flags out of their car windows. If they can afford the extra fuel required to put up with the added drag caused by those, they can afford extra fuel duty. Simples.


 
Never mind the flags, its the binary right foot with which many of them seem to drive that must waste loads of fuel as does racing around at much over the speed limits.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (27 Jun 2012)

berty bassett said:


> MEEEE i voted them in ! And honestly - i would do it again ! all they are doing is noticing the country is skint so trying to claw money back just the same as most families do when the pot is empty . common sense says if you you keep on spending when you have no money its only a matter of time before it catches up with you - and while i am in political rant mode - no - it ain't fair that non workers can be better off than workers after a multitude of benefits or that they get money thrown at them for having kids . i made the decision that i couldn't afford anymore kids - and i work hard - people need to be made to pay for their choices . we all know spongers who have no intention of working just knocking out kids and they seem to have all the money to be sitting in the sun outside pubs smoking . i was speaking to a foreign ex-worker - she said she loved this country - you get paid to have babies ! - not her fault - ours - the whole system is wrong and needs changing but no-one will do it cos its political suicide as so many are on the band wagon now - where will it end - workers will only get small pay rises - non workers will say this aint fair so they will get pay rises meaning workers need to be taxed more so they are slightly worse of - this will keep on happening till the worker says hang on - i will be better off not working and once enough workers think that then the country is sunk ! why not prop up poorly paid jobs with half benefits - therefore making it a decent paid job and getting tax back while also saving in benefits - and at the same time reducing benefits to people who cant be bothered to work as the money is rolling in . i know of one person who openly said i aint working no more cos its for mugs - and hes milking the system - he ain't the only one -- there thats set me mood for the day


 
could you PM me their details please, my son could do with a bit of an experienced head to figure out the system. He earns roughly £9000 per year, lives with his partner, she's looking for work, because of his massive income she has been told and upheld on appeal that she's entitled to nothing so he's supporting the 2 of them.

His total state support is £100 housing benefit towards his £400+ rent a month and £75 off his £1000+ annual council tax bill. after utilities and TV licence etc If he's lucky he ends up with £25-£30 to live on and buy food, clothes, deal with emergencies etc.

That is the reality of your utopian dream of propping up poorly paid jobs with benefits, its already happening and it s**t.

He's also under 25 and will be after next election so could well be looking at losing his housing benefit too. Great, well done, cheers for bringing in a regimen that thinks he can feed and clothe 2 people on £0 a week.

Shall I kick him on your behalf next time I put some food in his cupboards.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (27 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> State workers are supported by the efforts of the private sector - in the same way that the unemployed are. State workers provide services, but don't create anything of worth for their efforts in terms of monetary value - apart from Customs and Excise who raise tax (off the people who generate the wealth).


 
I'm not a regular here, is there a smiley to cover howling with laughter whilst violently banging my head off the desk to try and sink to this level of thinking


----------



## Davidc (27 Jun 2012)

mickle said:


> Who voted these fricking amateurs into government? They are completely out of control.


 I'm ashamed to admit voting for a Lib Dem. Next time it'll be for Labour.


----------



## smutchin (27 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Really? The private sector survived for 1000s of years before the state existed!


 
The very first writing systems were developed as a bureaucratic tool for "civil servants" to record tax contributions.

"The State" predates private enterprise.

d.


----------



## oldfatfool (27 Jun 2012)

wgaf

At the end of the day I am taxed on what I earn, I pay tax on everything I buy (one way or another) and I am taxed on (what little) interest I earn when I can afford to save.

Anyway you look at it the govm't ends up with the largest portion of my money, *Whichever* set of idiots are in power.


----------



## srw (27 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> The very first writing systems were developed as a bureaucratic tool for "civil servants" to record tax contributions.
> 
> "The State" predates private enterprise.
> 
> d.


 Indeed, private enterprise as we currently understand it is an invention of the very recent past.
Rudimentary banking - 14th century
UK merchant banks - early 19th century
Joint stock limited liability companies - 1855
Big bang; removal of restrictions on share dealing - 1980s
Integrated banking - late 20th century


----------



## srw (27 Jun 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Anyway you look at it the govm't ends up with the largest portion of my money,


That's not true even for the wealthiest among us.

If you're on the median income you pay about 15% income tax, less than 10% NI and 20% on purchases.


----------



## mickle (27 Jun 2012)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I'm not a regular here, is there a smiley to cover howling with laughter whilst violently banging my head off the desk to try and sink to this level of thinking


 
Yes it's:

:howlingwithlaughterwhilstviolentlybangingmyheadoffthedesktotryandsinktothislevelofthinking:


----------



## benb (27 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but half the motons round here are still flying flags out of their car windows. If they can afford the extra fuel required to put up with the added drag caused by those, they can afford extra fuel duty. Simples.


 
Plus almost everyone drives horribly inefficiently, or has an inefficient car (or both)
And most people don't even bother shopping around for the cheapest fuel in the area.

Clearly they can afford to pay much, much more for fuel.


----------



## smutchin (27 Jun 2012)

The one that gets me is people leaving their engine running while popping into the newsagent, waiting at a level crossing etc.

What this kind of behaviour tells me is that far from being too expensive, fuel isn't nearly expensive enough.

(Which is just another way of saying what benb just said, obviously.)

d.


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

If you work on the fact that delivery vehicle fleets can achieve economy of scale, how much do we need to put fuel duty up by to give us an income tax cut that will be enough to pay for any increase in the price of goods caused by the duty rise?

Or in other words how do we price cars off the road without affecting our general standard of living?


----------



## oldfatfool (27 Jun 2012)

srw said:


> That's not true even for the wealthiest among us.
> 
> If you're on the median income you pay about 15% income tax, less than 10% NI and 20% on purchases.


 
And where does the other 80% of the money I spent on purchases go? Eventually it goes to the gov't in tax paid by the retailer be that in wages to their employees or their income tax or import duty or or or or or ... unless I stick it under the bed and never spend it, then eventually it goes in taxes.


----------



## srw (27 Jun 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> And where does the other 80% of the money I spent on purchases go? Eventually it goes to the gov't in tax paid by the retailer be that in wages to their employees or their income tax or import duty or or or or or ... unless I stick it under the bed and never spend it, then eventually it goes in taxes.


 Look up the maths of summing a geometric progression.


----------



## oldfatfool (27 Jun 2012)

srw said:


> Look up the maths of summing a geometric progression.


Why? Unless the money remains in the retailers till and is never accounted for it will eventually get spent in taxes in some way or other. Until money is removed from the system it is just tax waiting to be paid.


----------



## Alun (27 Jun 2012)

benb said:


> Plus _*almost everyone*_ drives horribly inefficiently, or has an inefficient car (or both)
> And _*most people*_ don't even bother shopping around for the cheapest fuel in the area.
> 
> Clearly they can afford to pay much, much more for fuel.


A startling generalization, for someone with the tag of "evidence based cyclist"!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jun 2012)

1907691 said:


> With roads, hospitals, education, etc available to everyone?


Stop with the socialism already. Private enterprise is where it is at. Do catch up. Socalism, along with the police, fire service, sewerage, defence, etc., etc., is just so 19 Century.


----------



## gavintc (27 Jun 2012)

OK, Assuming a car does 40 mpg and fuel cost £1.40. That means that each mile is costing roughly 6.3p in fuel. If you drive a total of 5 miles out of your way to find some cheaper fuel, it has 'cost' you 31.5 p. So, you need to make sure that you put a decent amount of fuel into the tank or that the saving is worth the drive. I have had this discussion with colleagues that the cheap fuel in the next village is nothing of the sort.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jun 2012)

Davidc said:


> I'm ashamed to admit voting for a Lib Dem. Next time it'll be for Labour.


then you'll get a pure Tory government rather than a coalition....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> If you work on the fact that delivery vehicle fleets can achieve economy of scale, how much do we need to put fuel duty up by to give us an income tax cut that will be enough to pay for any increase in the price of goods caused by the duty rise?
> 
> Or in other words *how do we price cars off the road without affecting our general standard of living?*


Price private cars off the road. What a wonderful idea. Please allow me to buy you beer next time we meet.


----------



## gavintc (27 Jun 2012)

So, I take it that the opinion of most CC posters is that the government should ignore the fact that the country is rather poor and just spend as normal - just like the last government. Let us all put our fingers in our ears and sing 'La La La'.


----------



## mickle (27 Jun 2012)

gavintc said:


> So, I take it that the opinion of most CC posters is that the government should ignore the fact that the country is rather poor and just spend as normal - just like the last government. Let us all put our fingers in our ears and sing 'La La La'.


How did you come to that conclusion?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jun 2012)

1908193 said:


> Well bollocks, I have seen the light and my life lacks all meaning.


 
I know _just_ how you feel. But some of my Toryboy friends have explained it all to me. Apparently we plebs just have to trust the posh boys and it will all work out fine for them.


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Price private cars off the road. What a wonderful idea. Please allow me to buy you beer next time we meet.


How could I possibly refuse?


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I know _just_ how you feel. But some of my Toryboy friends have explained it all to me. Apparently we plebs just have to trust the posh boys and it will all work out fine for them.


I thought it was the role of us plebs (junior ministers included) to answer the difficult questions when the posh boys are too scared to come out to play have more important things to do.


----------



## byegad (27 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> . Please allow me to buy you beer next time we meet.


 
Does this apply to everyone who agrees with him?


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

byegad said:


> Does this apply to everyone who agrees with him?


Anyone who agrees with me or disagrees with me or who even hates my guts is welcome to buy me a beer next time we meet. I'm not fussy.


----------



## Davidc (27 Jun 2012)

gavintc said:


> OK, Assuming a car does 40 mpg and fuel cost £1.40. That means that each mile is costing roughly 6.3p in fuel. If you drive a total of 5 miles out of your way to find some cheaper fuel, it has 'cost' you 31.5 p. So, you need to make sure that you put a decent amount of fuel into the tank or that the saving is worth the drive. I have had this discussion with colleagues that the cheap fuel in the next village is nothing of the sort.


 
4.55 x £1.40 = £6.37 (price per gallon)
At 40 mpg that's 637/40 pence per mile = 16p per mile.

Even George Osborne wouldn't try to slip that one past us!



GregCollins said:


> then you'll get a pure Tory government rather than a coalition....


 
That depends how other people respond.

I'm not sure what would happen if we recalculated the result of 2010 on the basis of a 100% redistribution of Lib Dem votes to Labour!


----------



## smutchin (27 Jun 2012)

Davidc said:


> Even George Osborne wouldn't try to slip that one past us!


 
You also need to factor in the other costs related to motoring - IIRC the true cost of running a car is something like 24p a mile, so driving those extra five miles for cheap petrol is even more of a false economy than gavintc has made it sound.


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

1908267 said:


> Another illusion shattered.


I hate doing that to people!!! I really must learn to judge my audience better.


----------



## DRHysted (27 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I know _just_ how you feel. But some of my Toryboy friends have explained it all to me. Apparently we plebs just have to trust the posh boys and it will all work out fine for them.


 
Are you talking about torys or labour?

The biggest growth in gap between income levels happened during the 13 years that labour were in power. There is no difference between any of them, I wish there was.

Remember historicly Labour have left government when the country was skint, Torys have left with money in the bank (but not in our pockets).


----------



## benb (27 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> A startling generalization, for someone with the tag of "evidence based cyclist"!


That's a fair point. I should obviously have said "In my experience"


----------



## green1 (27 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Price private cars off the road. What a wonderful idea. Please allow me to buy you beer next time we meet.


Would that be a beer that has has it's ingrediants grown, brewed and delivery to the pub without use of an internal combustion engine?


----------



## Alun (27 Jun 2012)

green1 said:


> Would that be a beer that has has it's ingrediants grown, brewed and delivery to the pub without use of an internal combustion engine?


They used to deliver Tetley's around Leeds city centre pubs by horse and dray until recently(ish), not convinced that the hops were delivered to the brewery by the same method though


----------



## martint235 (27 Jun 2012)

green1 said:


> Would that be a beer that has has it's ingrediants grown, brewed and delivery to the pub without use of an internal combustion engine?


Not sure it's relevant. I'm not particularly green just don't like whining motorists. However I refer the honourable member to the top previous not fussy comment


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Really? The private sector survived for 1000s of years before the state existed!
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


no it didn't. End of.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jun 2012)

this isn't about U-turns. It's not even about the fuel tax. It's about the collapse in tax revenue and the uncontrolled growth in public spending. This is the most profligate government in history, and the shocking thing is that this profligacy is unplanned and unmanaged.


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Really? The private sector survived for 1000s of years before the state existed!
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


Ever seen the pyramids in Egypt? Result of a state funded and organised job creation scheme ... 4-5000 years ago.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

green1 said:


> Would that be a beer that has has it's ingrediants grown, brewed and delivery to the pub without use of an internal combustion engine?


Do they use private cars to deliver beer these days?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

Davidc said:


> That depends how other people respond.
> 
> I'm not sure what would happen if we recalculated the result of 2010 on the basis of a 100% redistribution of Lib Dem votes to Labour!


 
But 100% of LibDem voters would never ever vote 100% Labour. Many of us would probably spoil our ballots or abstain if forced to chose only between Labour and Tory. (and until such time as no member of Labour's war government is active at the top of the party I'll not vote for them again)


----------



## byegad (28 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> You also need to factor in the other costs related to motoring - IIRC the true cost of running a car is something like 24p a mile, so driving those extra five miles for cheap petrol is even more of a false economy than gavintc has made it sound.


 
Without wear and tear, like tyres, brake pads etc.etc.etc. My car costs me just over £800/annum to stand on the front with VED, insurance, MOT and a service. At 40mpg it costs around 15.5p/mile in fuel. I drive around 5500 miles a year so total cost/mile is around 30p/mile or 40p if I factor in the odd tyre and brake pad replacement. THEN you need to add in the cost of the car less the trade in value when I sell it. Which last time I swapped cars came to around 19p per mile driven.

So the total cost for me is around 60p/mile. If I covered a much higher annual mileage the capital cost/mile would fall by a good chunk, although wear and tear costs would rise.


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

byegad said:


> Without wear and tear, like tyres, brake pads etc.etc.etc. My car costs me just over £800/annum to stand on the front with VED, insurance, MOT and a service. At 40mpg it costs around 15.5p/mile in fuel. I drive around 5500 miles a year so total cost/mile is around 30p/mile or 40p if I factor in the odd tyre and brake pad replacement. THEN you need to add in the cost of the car less the trade in value when I sell it. Which last time I swapped cars came to around 19p per mile driven.
> 
> So the total cost for me is around 60p/mile. If I covered a much higher annual mileage the capital cost/mile would fall by a good chunk, although wear and tear costs would rise.


 

Ultimately, the only way you can reduce the cost per mile of car ownership is to actually use it more - thanks in greater part to VED, and insurance premium tax - as well as VAT on servicing, and consumables, and that is before you even start the engine.

If the gov were truly demanding that car mileage falls, it would reduce the taxes on static ownership cost, and increase the tax on the fuel duty to make people think long and hard about what they consider to be essential mileage. 

Banning private cars from the road is really a dumb idea as the alternatives are very disjointed, and for the greater part impractical, but I do believe that a bit of joined up thinking could actually retain the utility requirement whilst reducing private car journey miles, and thus make the roads a nicer and safer place to be for all.


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Banning private cars from the road is really a dumb idea as the alternatives are very disjointed,


 I think that if a ban was put into place, the alternatives would become incredibly efficient and practical very, very quickly. It's amazing what can be done when there's money to be made.


----------



## BSRU (28 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> They used to deliver Tetley's around Leeds city centre pubs by horse and dray until recently(ish), not convinced that the hops were delivered to the brewery by the same method though


Ironically when the car first appeared on the streets it was regarded as the "green" alternative to horses because the streets were full of dead horses and tonnes of horse manure.(Assuming QI is correct)


----------



## green1 (28 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Do they use private cars to deliver beer these days?


How is there going to be any beer to deliver with out the farmers machinery which in the tends to be privately owned?


----------



## theclaud (28 Jun 2012)

green1 said:


> How is there going to be any beer to deliver with out the farmers machinery which in the tends to be privately owned?



You seem to be having trouble with the idea of the private car.


----------



## middleagecyclist (28 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> State workers are supported by the efforts of the private sector - in the same way that the unemployed are. State workers provide services, but don't create anything of worth for their efforts in terms of monetary value - apart from Customs and Excise who raise tax (off the people who generate the wealth).


...and so having an educated, healthy, policed, etc society has no monetary value?


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> ...and so having an educated, healthy, policed, etc society has no monetary value?


 
Educated to do what - get gainful employment filling the state created non jobs ? 
Healthy - Lol
Policed - certainly wasn't the case when I had my bike nicked

I certainly do not think that the state system is giving good value for money. It is all tax , print the money for the shortfall and spend more than is coming in. 

We are just a few years behind Greece - We should be net exporters of goods produced by our workers. We should encourage more foreign investment here. We are dying slowly on our feet. It all looks grim to me as long as people think that we can continue to effectively borrow our way out of debt. The debts are huge because amongst other things, the Gov thought that it could loan student grants which never get paid off, and then borrow money to employ all the students in admin jobs once they finished their degrees in Surfing or Star Wars


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

green1 said:


> How is there going to be any beer to deliver with out the farmers machinery which in the tends to be privately owned?


Do farmers use cars to farm their fields?


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Do farmers use cars to farm their fields?


 
That is what the Landrover was originally created to do, but they are certainly used to check on their animals nowadays.

Ditch all the regular cars and replace them with 4x4's


----------



## mickle (28 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> That is what the Landrover was originally created to do,


 
No. It wasn't.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Jun 2012)

byegad said:


> Without wear and tear, like tyres, brake pads etc.etc.etc. My car costs me just over £800/annum to stand on the front with VED, insurance, MOT and a service. At 40mpg it costs around 15.5p/mile in fuel. I drive around 5500 miles a year so total cost/mile is around 30p/mile or 40p if I factor in the odd tyre and brake pad replacement. THEN you need to add in the cost of the car less the trade in value when I sell it. Which last time I swapped cars came to around 19p per mile driven.
> 
> So the total cost for me is around 60p/mile. If I covered a much higher annual mileage the capital cost/mile would fall by a good chunk, although wear and tear costs would rise.


I would think that the true cost of running a 15 year old Golf would be higher still - if said Golf was only doing 2500 miles a year. And that, surely, is the point. It's the standing costs that are important if you order your life in a way that reduces car mileage. All this whinging about fuel costs begs the question - why are people burning this much fuel? Sort yourselves out!


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Jun 2012)

green1 said:


> How is there going to be any beer to deliver with out the farmers machinery which in the tends to be privately owned?


Red diesel


----------



## DRHysted (28 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Do they use private cars to deliver beer these days?


 
If you think fuel duty effects only private cars, you are incorrectly informed.

All companies pay the fuel cost at full price on purchase, they then submit to get the VAT back which can take between 3 and 6 months (this delay can badly effect cash flow). They do not get the duty back, they have to involve that in the cost of business. This means that if the duty increase happens during the course of a contract, the haulier has to absord the extra cost, reducing his profit margin (some owner drivers profit margin is as small as 1%, so don't get thinking that there is loads of money in it). If the duty increase happens out of contract then the haulier can increase his price to compansate, but he risks losing the contract to another firm.

If fuel duty goes up, then the price of everything must go up to keep the transport industry going, and believe me the transport industry is the life blood of this country, if they stop moving within 4 days this country would grind to a stop. Or be invaded by all the foriegn lorries that can fill their tanks with Belgium diesel and run for a week over here, paying no tax to support our country but taking the profits out.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Jun 2012)

DRHysted said:


> If you think fuel duty effects only private cars, you are incorrectly informed.
> 
> All companies pay the fuel cost at full price on purchase, they then submit to get the VAT back which can take between 3 and 6 months (this delay can badly effect cash flow). They do not get the duty back, they have to involve that in the cost of business. This means that if the duty increase happens during the course of a contract, the haulier has to absord the extra cost, reducing his profit margin (some owner drivers profit margin is as small as 1%, so don't get thinking that there is loads of money in it). If the duty increase happens out of contract then the haulier can increase his price to compansate, but he risks losing the contract to another firm.
> 
> If fuel duty goes up, then the price of everything must go up to keep the transport industry going, and believe me the transport industry is the life blood of this country, if they stop moving within 4 days this country would grind to a stop. Or be invaded by all the foriegn lorries that can fill their tanks with Belgium diesel and run for a week over here, paying no tax to support our country but taking the profits out.


sorry, but, other than the last sentence (which is an argument for some compensating duty to be exacted on trucks bringing diesel in to the country) this makes absolutely no sense. It is the duty of government to collect taxes. It is the duty of government to influence the way we do things via taxation - that's why a pack of fags costs seven quid. The simple, nay, crude, fact is that too much diesel is burnt delivering too much stuff. Taxation on diesel is an incentive to sourcing goods locally and discriminating between goods, including foodstuffs, moved small distances and large distances. The existence of ten thousand garden centres, breakfast cereals trucked two hundred miles, paint, frocks, beer and newspapers being moved across the country on the back of lorries is evidence that haulage is far too cheap. I'm not suggesting that haulage is a curse of the same order as the private car, and I'd happily see half or more of the junctions on to motorways and segregated trunk roads like the A14 shut to shift their use from personal to strategic, but, when it comes down to it, government has a duty to reduce haulage rather than increase it.


----------



## Simon1234 (28 Jun 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> no it didn't. End of.


Yes it did. Must have by definition. 

End of.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Jun 2012)

here's the skinny. Assets (as in assets with meaning and utility transcending the immediate) held by capitalism - new(ish). Assets held by rulers not so new.


----------



## srw (28 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Yes it did. Must have by definition.
> 
> End of.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


Illogical. The private sector cannot logically exist without a universally accepted means of value transfer. Which means money. Which means a state.

Barter doesn't make a private sector.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

DRHysted said:


> If you think fuel duty effects only private cars, you are incorrectly informed.


As it happens I'm incredibly well informed.

Private cars are a curse on society. Hauliers a necessary evil, until such time as we reorganise our society.

The question(s) remain...



martint235 said:


> If you work on the fact that delivery vehicle fleets can achieve economy of scale, how much do we need to put fuel duty up by to give us an income tax cut that will be enough to pay for any increase in the price of goods caused by the duty rise?
> 
> Or in other words how do we price cars off the road without affecting our general standard of living?


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

mickle said:


> No. It wasn't.


 
1948 - a Landrover ploughing a field


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

1909335 said:


> Landrovers, as in real ones, are not cars.


 
I would have to think long and hard about wanting to own one. My Shogun is agricultural enough and is a lot more compliant than an old series LR.


----------



## mickle (28 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> I would have to think long and hard about wanting to own one. My Shogun is agricultural enough and is a lot more compliant than an old series LR.


 
You are one of the characters off of the fast show and I claim my £5.


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

mickle said:


> You are one of the characters off of the fast show and I claim my £5.


 
A simple 'like' would have sufficed Mickle


----------



## mickle (28 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 1948 - a Landrover ploughing a field


 
This proves what exactly? It was developed on a farm not developed for farm use. Did the fact that it was entirely based on a Jeep chassis and running gear (which is a military vehicle) escape your notice?


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

mickle said:


> This proves what exactly? It was developed on a farm not developed for farm use. Did the fact that it was entirely based on a Jeep chassis and running gear (which is a military vehicle) escape your notice?


 


> 1946 Maurice Wilks' Jeep needs replacing.
> Maurice Wilks had a farm on Anglesey that made use of a beaten-up war surplus Willys Jeep. He found this Jeep useful for a variety of practical farm uses. Nearing the end of its life, Maurice was considering a replacement. No British alternative existed, and parts for a new Willys Jeep were hard to get at that time. What spares were available, had to be purchased as bulk war surplus stock. This problem identified a gap in the market for a farm vehicle that was smaller than a tractor but was more versatile, and was rugged without being cumbersome.
> September 1947 The 'Land Rover' project was made official.
> Board Meeting minutes describe it as "the all-purpose vehicle on the lines of the Willys-Overland post-war Jeep was the most desirable" using the P3 engine, gearbox, and back axle.
> In reality the first prototypes were already running, with design work starting in spring 1947.


http://www.winwaed.com/landy/history/timeline.shtml


----------



## Simon1234 (28 Jun 2012)

srw said:


> Illogical. The private sector cannot logically exist without a universally accepted means of value transfer. Which means money. Which means a state.
> 
> Barter doesn't make a private sector.



No, entirely logical. Having a value exchange mechanism doesn' t make a state.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peteaud (28 Jun 2012)

I have a better idea.

Ban Electricity.

Nothing can run

We can live as saxons.

End of


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> No, entirely logical. Having a value exchange mechanism doesn' t make a state.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


I thought we'd got past the "state" thing a couple of pages ago. We're talking about a public sector, that would be a sector paid for by the public. Do try to keep up


----------



## Alun (28 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> I thought we'd got past the "state" thing a couple of pages ago. We're talking about a public sector, that would be a sector paid for by the public. Do try to keep up


Or a sector providing for the public, funded by taxes.


----------



## middleagecyclist (28 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Educated to do what - get gainful employment filling the state created non jobs ?


Perhaps we should all become non state, private sector investment bankers. There's some wealth creation for you (not!)


----------



## Linford (28 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Perhaps we should all become non state, private sector investment bankers. There's some wealth creation for you (not!)


 
Well I was actually thinking manufacturers of real products for hard foreign currency. That is why China is so rich, and everyone else is directly or indirectly indebted to them...


----------



## middleagecyclist (28 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Well I was actually thinking manufacturers of real products for hard foreign currency. That is why China is so rich, and everyone else is directly or indirectly indebted to them...


So not everything private is good then? China - very state controlled capitalism isn't it?


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> So not everything private is good then? China - very state controlled capitalism isn't it?


 
And they have the good sense to appreciate that if you want to buy foreign goods, or support state workers, you have to produce and sell goods or services (or minerals) to foreign countries. This is a concept which many state workers here struggle with.

Let me put it another way - if you don't produce anything which foreigners want to buy, then you have to print money to buy their money so you can buy their goods which you need. If they really find little in your country which they want to buy, you have to print lots and lots of your monopoly money for them to want to take a punt on it - maybe in the remote hope that in future, some bright spark in your country will produce something they can buy with it.

Successive governments just seem to have missed this one completely, and just treated our manufacturing sector with contempt. Manufacturing requires investment in production facilities, staff training, raw material stock, and also marketing and sales. Successive Gov's here seem to consider this too much of a gamble, and that is why they big upped the banking sector.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> And they have the good sense to appreciate that if you want to buy foreign goods, or support state workers, you have to produce and sell goods or services (or minerals) to foreign countries. This is a concept which many state workers here struggle with.
> 
> Let me put it another way - if you don't produce anything which foreigners want to buy, then you have to print money to buy their money so you can buy their goods which you need. If they really find little in your country which they want to buy, you have to print lots and lots of your monopoly money for them to want to take a punt on it - maybe in the remote hope that in future, some bright spark in your country will produce something they can buy with it.
> 
> Successive governments just seem to have missed this one completely, and just treated our manufacturing sector with contempt. Manufacturing requires investment in production facilities, staff training, raw material stock, and also marketing and sales. Successive Gov's here seem to consider this too much of a gamble, and that is why they big upped the banking sector.


 By sheer fluke, one of the things that we are actually very good at producing is money. And I don't mean in a financial services sense. Many countries across the world rely on the UK to actually produce the notes they use on a daily basis!


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> And they have the good sense to appreciate that if you want to buy foreign goods, or support state workers, you have to produce and sell goods or services (or minerals) to foreign countries.


I agree money must be earnt by selling goods/services and simply printing money or borrowing money is not a long term option. Who wouldn't?

However, for goods to be exported they must be produced. This takes a workforce. They need educating to various levels. When they get sick they need healing. The goods must be stored and transported with little risk of theft. Transport must take place on roads/trains (again by people who need education and skills), to ports/airports with people in place to ensure safe and effective operation, etc, etc.

I think rather than the private sector supporting state workers you will find a lot of non production workers are supporting the goods producers be they private or state run. The two cannot exist without each other though and it's about getting the balance right at the of the day.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I agree money must be earnt by selling goods/services and simply printing money or borrowing money is not a long term option. Who wouldn't?
> 
> However, for goods to be exported they must be produced. This takes a workforce. They need educating to various levels. When they get sick they need healing. The goods must be stored and transported with little risk of theft. Transport must take place on roads/trains (again by people who need education and skills), to ports/airports with people in place to ensure safe and effective operation, etc, etc.
> 
> I think rather than the private sector supporting state workers you will find a lot of non production workers are supporting the goods producers be they private or state run. The two cannot exist without each other though and it's about getting the balance right at the of the day.


 
Nearly all the training in my business is vocational training done on site. It is too specialist for colleges, and machine specific training comes from the machine suppliers 

Agree that education is important, but state education doesn't give very good VFM, and seems to have lost its way being turned into a business for producing certificates than people who are useful in commerce and industry. That is why experience carries more clout than qualifications, and employers recognise this as so.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

If it's possible to do away with the public sector, why has no country done so? Surely you would have thought the US would have tried under a previous Republican administration. Oh and I suppose we'd have to remove the governance aspect of the public sector too so MPs/Congressman would be sponsored by private companies rather than paid by the Treasury (which wouldn't exist). I can see this theoretical country be a joy to live in. "The right honourable member for McDonalds would like to introduce a private members bill banning the mention of dieting from TV"


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Nearly all the training in my business is vocational training done on site. It is too specialist for colleges, and machine specific training comes from the machine suppliers
> 
> Agree that education is important, but state education doesn't give very good VFM, and seems to have lost its way being turned into a business for producing certificates than people who are useful in commerce and industry. That is why experience carries more clout than qualifications, and employers recognise this as so.


Where does the future HGV driver learn to read and write before taking his/her driving test and gaining the HGV license? A general education is all some people need before getting vocational training. And the next time you are in hospital I hope the specialist qualifications the staff have provide them a firm base for lots of further training they undergo!

I have no quibble that some 'education' is of little value but please don't paint the state sector with such a general brush.

Cheers.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> If it's possible to do away with the public sector, why has no country done so? Surely you would have thought the US would have tried under a previous Republican administration. Oh and I suppose we'd have to remove the governance aspect of the public sector too so MPs/Congressman would be sponsored by private companies rather than paid by the Treasury (which wouldn't exist). I can see this theoretical country be a joy to live in. "The right honourable member for McDonalds would like to introduce a private members bill banning the mention of dieting from TV"


 
I don't have a problem with the notion that we need to have state workers, but it does come across as a two tier system which has created the gravy train mentality and quite a disparity across the board between state and private sectors.


----------



## mickle (29 Jun 2012)

Gravy train mentality?


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> I don't have a problem with the notion that we need to have state workers, but it does come across as a two tier system which has created the gravy train mentality and quite a disparity across the board between state and private sectors.


State employed nurse or board member of several large private companies. Which is most likely to have a "gravy train mentality" I wonder?


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> I don't have a problem with the notion that we need to have state workers, but it does come across as a two tier system which has created the gravy train mentality and quite a disparity across the board between state and private sectors.


The only real "gravy train mentality" in the public sector belongs to those who sit on green and red benches occasionally. They have pensions far superior to those held by virtually anyone else in the country. They are among the few people who, if they get sacked (rather than made redundant) they pick up a severance payment. And they have the power to make everyone else in the public sector miserable

I think MPs would work a lot harder if that severance payment was done away with.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> State employed nurse or board member of several large private companies. Which is most likely to have a "gravy train mentality" I wonder?


 
Well, there are far more State employed nurses than company directors of large private companies, and my mates ex who works in the local general can afford to take some serious long haul holidays each year as well as replacing her car every couple of years.
Come to think of it, another mate works as a contractor for a Gov dept in south wales , and bills them for over £100k per year - which they have paid him without batting an eyelid for the last 5 years.
I doubt they would get much better value if they employed a full time worker on a regular wage by the time the pension rights were factored in.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Well, there are far more State employed nurses than company directors of large private companies, and my mates ex who works in the local general can afford to take some serious long haul holidays each year as well as replacing her car every couple of years.


So what you actually want is a race to the bottom? You don't feel you're getting value for money from your local nurse because she can afford a car and holidays? Or you don't value the work she does?


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Well, there are far more State employed nurses than company directors of large private companies, and my mates ex who works in the local general can afford to take some serious long haul holidays each year as well as replacing her car every couple of years.
> Come to think of it, another mate works as a contractor for a Gov dept in south wales , and bills them for over £100k per year - which they have paid him without batting an eyelid for the last 5 years.
> I doubt they would get much better value if they employed a full time worker on a regular wage by the time the pension rights were factored in.


Does not compute. Please resubmit argument. Thank you.


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Well, there are far more State employed nurses than company directors of large private companies, and my mates ex who works in the local general can afford to take some serious long haul holidays each year as well as replacing her car every couple of years.
> Come to think of it, another mate works as a contractor for a Gov dept in south wales , and bills them for over £100k per year - which they have paid him without batting an eyelid for the last 5 years.
> I doubt they would get much better value if they employed a full time worker on a regular wage by the time the pension rights were factored in.


Exactly. Shame that most people can't see the obvious.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Rather than "DNR" notes on patient records, we should have "DNVMS" or "Does not value medical staff" on them. Then when Linf or Simon turn up at A&E we could save quite a bit of time and money.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Rather than "DNR" notes on patient records, we should have "DNVMS" or "Does not value medical staff" on them. Then when Linf or Simon turn up at A&E we could save quite a bit of time and money.


Not ethical. Sorry to say.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Not ethical. Sorry to say.


 There's always one spoilsport.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

Is there any chance we can have a show of hands for the state workers contributing to thsi thread - call it a declaration of interest so we can understand the motive for bias ?

I'll go first. I don't work for the state, and I am keen to see that the tax pauers who do contribute to the economy get VFM.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Is there any chance we can have a show of hands for the state workers contributing to thsi thread - call it a declaration of interest so we can understand the motive for bias ?
> 
> I'll go first. I don't work for the state, and I am keen to see that the tax pauers who do contribute to the economy get VFM.


I do work for the state, and I am keen to see that the tax payers who do contribute to the economy get VFM. Mainly because I am a taxpayer who contributes to the economy.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

1910923 said:


> Tattooed on the forehead would save the diesel for the ambulance as well.


 I like your thinking. Am also willing to do the tattooing (on a state subsidy naturally!)


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> So what you actually want is a race to the bottom? You don't feel you're getting value for money from your local nurse because she can afford a car and holidays? Or you don't value the work she does?


 
A race to the bottom, no of course not, but there has to be some parity between her wages and those in other industries where a similar amount of training is required. I thought for a minute that people go into Nursing because they want to care for people. That used to be the reason back in the day....


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> A race to the bottom, no of course not, but there has to be some parity between her wages and those in other industries where a similar amount of training is required. I thought for a minute that people go into Nursing because they want to care for people. That used to be the reason back in the day....


 So it's all about the training involved, not the value of the job performed? And you propose paying people less in proportion to their job satisfaction?

Do you actually believe the stuff you write?


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> I do work for the state, and I am keen to see that the tax payers who do contribute to the economy get VFM. Mainly because I am a taxpayer who contributes to the economy.


 
It could be argued that what you actually do is take the taxes as a wage off the productive ones in the economy, and then get some of that taxed some more. The rest has to be produced through quantitive easing (printing money) to make up the shortfall...


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

1910937 said:


> It's OK Linf we can all understand the motivation for your bias already.


 
How about yourself Adrian ?


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> It could be argued that what you actually do is take the taxes as a wage off the productive ones in the economy, and then get some of that taxed some more. The rest has to be produced through quantitive easing (printing money) to make up the shortfall...


It could and I could argue that in between taking the taxes and then being taxed, I perform a valuable service to the country that couldn't be entrusted to a private company. What do you do that we couldn't happily live without?


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> So it's all about the training involved, not the value of the job performed? And you propose paying people less in proportion to their job satisfaction?
> 
> Do you actually believe the stuff you write?


 
What I propose is that some parity is restored between what is going on in the economy, and what people who work for the state receive in wages and benefits.

This is why Greece is in the cart. Ours will follow that path if the disparity is not addressed.

the state sector here is overbloated because it is too generous in its own pay awardfs and the country can't afford the bills. It isn't rocket science !


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> What I propose is that some parity is restored between what is going on in the economy, and what people who work for the state receive in wages and benefits.
> 
> This is why Greece is in the cart. Ours will follow that path if the disparity is not addressed.
> 
> the state sector here is overbloated because it is too generous in its own pay awardfs and the country can't afford the bills. It isn't rocket science !


 What pay awards? Seriously if you're looking for someone in the state sector to take a kicking start looking at the MPs, the rest of us are taking pay cuts.

Greece is in trouble because it didn't collect it's tax revenue efficiently largely by undervaluing the work of its public sector. The private sector used the opportunity to shaft the country.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> It could and I could argue that in between taking the taxes and then being taxed, I perform a valuable service to the country that couldn't be entrusted to a private company. What do you do that we couldn't happily live without?


 
There are plenty of contractors working in sensitive roles for the government and who run their affairs as limited companies which bill for their services. I struggle to imagine what you might do which can't be farmed out to a contractor.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

1910966 said:


> Routinely a voice of reason me, AIS said so.


 
You are talking in riddles. A yes or no would be good enough.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> There are plenty of contractors working in sensitive roles for the government and who run their affairs as limited companies which bill for their services. I struggle to imagine what you might do which can't be farmed out to a contractor.


 Come on make up your mind. On the one hand you want to cut the waste in the public sector and then you tell me I should become a contractor and charge the taxpayer double what I currently receive (and yes the market rate for a contractor to do what I do is double what I get).


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Come on make up your mind. On the one hand you want to cut the waste in the public sector and then you tell me I should become a contractor and charge the taxpayer double what I currently receive (and yes the market rate for a contractor to do what I do is double what I get).


 
My mate only gets what he gets because the state are prepared to pay him that. Many of the contractors in the pivate sector doing what he does are now overpriced and out of work. If you are on £50k PA and work for the state, that is substantially more than the private sector is paying as an average wage. State paid wages just inflate the economy and make it all uncompetitive. House prices in part rose through both unregulated lending, and an aweful lot of people in the public sector getting big pay awards back in the noughties thanks to Blairs meddling.


----------



## oldroadman (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> What pay awards? Seriously if you're looking for someone in the state sector to take a kicking start looking at the MPs, the rest of us are taking pay cuts.
> 
> *Greece is in trouble because it didn't collect it's tax revenue efficiently largely by undervaluing the work of its public sector. The private sector used the opportunity to shaft the country.[/*quote]
> And not because they had/have a retiring age in the 50's and can't sustain pensions, and that tax evasion is an even bigger national sport than in Italy (which is difficult to imagine)? Should never have been in the Euro, and it's just when rather than if they get slung out. Most German taxpayers now pay for a holiday home - it's called Greece....


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

1911004 said:


> In the 7 years to June 2013 my overall pay rise will be 6.04%. That is the gross pay rise and does not account for the increase in pension contribution. It represents a reduction of 16% compared to RPI.
> Now I fully appreciate that there are winners and loosers across the board and that some have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs completely. Anyone else want to compare notes?


 
Don't bitch about your pnsion contributions unless you are happy to divulge the ratio of employer contribution to yours into the pot. On top of this, your contributions are paying for the current retiree's. There is no such thing as a ' pension pot', just a promise to pay out Blah, Blah, Blah when you take your early retirement option.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> My mate only gets what he gets because the state are prepared to pay him that. Many of the contractors in the pivate sector doing what he does are now overpriced and out of work. If you are on £50k PA and work for the state, that is substantially more than the private sector is paying as an average wage. State paid wages just inflate the economy and make it all uncompetitive.


 B****cks. I've just done a google search and for contracting jobs in the PRIVATE sector at the moment, the pay varies between £85k and £105k depending on my experience (yes I feel I am experienced enough for the £105k job). These are working for private companies. What I've found is that the contractors employed by the state tend to be at the bottom of the scale and experience level because the Govt tries to save money.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

The tax evasion in Greece is going on because the private sector knows it can get away with it. That was my point. I agree that retiring at 50 is slightly dubious!


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Oh and Linf, we're still waiting to hear what it is you do that is so vital we couldn't do without it?


----------



## srw (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Oh and Linf, we're still waiting to hear what it is you do that is so vital we couldn't do without it?


 He creates work for the internet pixies.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Oh and I forgot to mention, if I did become a contractor working in the private sector I would be able to arrange my tax affairs so that I paid substantially less tax than I do now


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Rather than "DNR" notes on patient records, we should have "DNVMS" or "Does not value medical staff" on them. Then when Linf or Simon turn up at A&E we could save quite a bit of time and money.



Actually, my wife and entire family that side are nurses/doctors and they entirely agree, let alone provide the evidence....

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Actually, my wife and entire family that side are nurses/doctors and they entirely agree, let alone provide the evidence....
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 So your wife has told you she feels overpaid??


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911043, member: 45"]I do believe I'm on Linfords ignore list. I find it strangely relaxing.[/quote]

Ha - sorry to disappoint you. You are far too entertaining


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> B****cks. I've just done a google search and for contracting jobs in the PRIVATE sector at the moment, the pay varies between £85k and £105k depending on my experience (yes I feel I am experienced enough for the £105k job). These are working for private companies. What I've found is that the contractors employed by the state tend to be at the bottom of the scale and experience level because the Govt tries to save money.


Well, most of my friends have made a fortune from the govmt as contractors, leveraging on their inability to manage and control programmes combined with a lack of decision making. 

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Oh and I forgot to mention, if I did become a contractor working in the private sector I would be able to arrange my tax affairs so that I paid substantially less tax than I do now


Just like the public sector then .....

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Oh and Linf, we're still waiting to hear what it is you do that is so vital we couldn't do without it?


 
I work in the private sector designing for export manufacturing technology to the rest of the world. In other words something which pays your wages


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> I work in the private sector designing for export manufacturing technology to the rest of the world. In other words something which pays your wages


 Surely you mean "pays part of my wages" given that the private sector is so impoverished?


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Just like the public sector then .....
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 Nope cos I'm not a contractor here, I'm a civil servant so I therefore pay quite a bit of tax that helps out all those in the private sector claiming tax credits for having children they can't afford.


----------



## srw (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> What pay awards? Seriously if you're looking for someone in the state sector to take a kicking start looking at the MPs, the rest of us are taking pay cuts.


Not all of you. There's at least one public sector employee who's getting nearly 12% this year.


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> So your wife has told you she feels overpaid??


Yes. Common agreement that agenda for change was a very good deal

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Well, most of my friends have made a fortune from the govmt as contractors, leveraging on their inability to manage and control programmes combined with a lack of decision making.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 Why not just miss out the "govrnt" bit as most of the contractors I know have made a fortune.

Oh and for crying out loud sort out your tapatalk signature, I don't need to know you can't afford an SIII.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Yes. Common agreement that agenda for change was a very good deal
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 So not only did she tell you that she was overpaid, she also volunteered for a pay cut?? I'm starting to agree that maybe we do need to choose our nurses more carefully


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Surely you mean "pays part of my wages" given that the private sector is so impoverished?


 
Yes, you are absolutely correct, the gov has to print the rest of the money to make up the shortfall. The downside is that by doing this, we become less competitive due to the devaluation in the currency which printing money to make up shortfall cause.


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Nope cos I'm not a contractor here, I'm a civil servant so I therefore pay quite a bit of tax that helps out all those in the private sector claiming tax credits for having children they can't afford.


And so you aren't aware that a significant number of the public sector employs the same tactic. You should listen to the news more often.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> So not only did she tell you that she was overpaid, she also volunteered for a pay cut?? I'm starting to agree that maybe we do need to choose our nurses more carefully



Show me where the word 'volunteered' appears in my text. It doesn't.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Yes, you are absolutely correct, the gov has to print the rest of the money to make up the shortfall. The downside is that by doing this, we become less competitive due to the devaluation in the currency which printing money to make up shortfall cause.


Devalued against what exactly? And as someone who works in export, surely you welcome devaluation with open arms? After all you'll be more competitive in the world market.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> And so you aren't aware that a significant number of the public sector employs the same tactic. You should listen to the news more often.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 That would be the rich bit including MPs et al. Civil servants at my level don't earn enough to make tax evasion worthwhile.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> Show me where the word 'volunteered' appears in my text. It doesn't.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


Common agreement that the agenda for change was a good deal. Sorry, _very good deal. _That to me is volunteering for a pay cut.

The agenda for change is about driving down the numbers of public and civil servants and then paying what is left less. Any one that tells you otherwise is in the pay of the Conservative party.

A nurse saying it's a very good deal is slightly less strange than the turkey not only voting for Xmas but suggesting we should have 365 Xmasses a year.


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Common agreement that the agenda for change was a good deal. Sorry, _very good deal. _That to me is volunteering for a pay cut.
> 
> The agenda for change is about driving down the numbers of public and civil servants and then paying what is left less. Any one that tells you otherwise is in the pay of the Conservative party.
> 
> A nurse saying it's a very good deal is slightly less strange than the turkey not only voting for Xmas but suggesting we should have 365 Xmasses a year.


And there was a GP saying exactly the same on the radio last week. ...

You are obviously out of touch.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Alun (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> If you are on £50k PA and work for the state, that is substantially more than the private sector is paying as an average wage.


Is £50K the average wage for working for the state? If not what is the relevance of that figure?


----------



## Simon1234 (29 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Is £50K the average wage for working for the state? If not what is the relevance of that figure?


No it isn't . But it sounds dramatic. Also misses the point that public sector pay is above the private sector, even before taking into account pensions.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Is £50K the average wage for working for the state? If not what is the relevance of that figure?


 It's just a figure Linf plucked out of the air for no good reason.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> And there was a GP saying exactly the same on the radio last week. ...
> 
> You are obviously out of touch.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 Would you like to have a bet on whether the majority of the NHS is for or against the agenda for change? And also on how many doctors feel it will jeopardise patient care?


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Nope cos I'm not a contractor here, I'm a civil servant so I therefore pay quite a bit of tax that helps out all those in the private sector claiming tax credits for having children they can't afford.


 
As your pension contributions are not actually being accumulated for your retirement, and rather instead going to pay for the existing retirees, you might consider those people making big sacrifices to bring productive workers into the world who's efforts will support you in your retirement as being a rather good idea


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Simon1234 said:


> No it isn't . But it sounds dramatic. Also misses the point that public sector pay is above the private sector, even before taking into account pensions.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


 Average pay in the civil service is £22,850 per year compared to £24,975 out in the private sector.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

1911151 said:


> And your population reduction program?


 
Stop at two - I did


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

I am a state worker - an RGN working as a Charge Nurse in a very busy A&E dept. As well as three yrs study to gain my RGN certificate and professional registration, I have a Diploma in Critical and Specialist Care, a BSc in Professional Health Care Practice, a huge number of other shorter courses and 22 yrs experience in acute medicine.

I make life saving decisions everyday at work, I teach staff, supervise junior nurses and doctors and work with patients and relatives at some of the most distressing points in their lives. I do the job because I love it. I don't do it because I get highly paid however I do expect a reasonable financial reward.

My basic salary is £30,460.00. On top of this I earn about £5000.00 pa for working almost every other weekend and a fortnight of night shifts every six weeks which throw my body clock out for the next week. I pay income tax and NI through PAYE and choose to pay extra into the NHS pension scheme - a scheme that I, and others, agreed to pay more into just four yrs ago which has now been unilaterally ripped up by this Government. I have never claimed an unemployment related benefit in my life.

Am I on the 'Gravy Train'?


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Am I on the 'Gravy Train'?


 Could you also for the sake of clarity please indicate if you are a supporter of the Agenda for Change? If you could indicate from both a pay perspective and also what you feel will be the affect on patient care?


----------



## Alun (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I am a state worker - an RGN working as a Charge Nurse in a very busy A&E dept. As well as three yrs study to gain my RGN certificate and professional registration, I have a Diploma in Critical and Specialist Care, a BSc in Professional Health Care Practice, a huge number of other shorter courses and 22 yrs experience in acute medicine.
> 
> I make life saving decisions everyday at work, I teach staff, supervise junior nurses and doctors and work with patients and relatives at some of the most distressing points in their lives. I do the job because I love it. I don't do it because I get highly paid however I do expect a reasonable financial reward.
> 
> ...


 Yes, you slacker! You should be producing widgets for export to China. Export or die! Don't you understand Linfordian economics?


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

User3094 said:


> Coincidentally


 
Handy that wasn't it


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Could you also for the sake of clarity please indicate if you are a supporter of the Agenda for Change? If you could indicate from both a pay perspective and also what you feel will be the affect on patient care?


Agenda for Change (AfC) looked at both pay and condtions across the NHS. I supported it at the time. It brought a shared pay scheme between different groups of health care workers each of which had their own pay council. It has very little to do with direct patient care. The _agreed_ rises we should have recieved were frozen for the last 2 yrs and we have been told we shall get just a 1% rise each yr for at least the next two yrs. We had already agreed to pay more into our pensions and now been told we have to work longer, pay more and receive less from our pensions.

Doesn't taste or feel like gravy.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911172, member: 45"]Not sure yet...


Are you Polish?
How long do we have before you do a moonlight flit with all the money we've given you?
[/quote]
Are you trolling?


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911172, member: 45"]Not sure yet...


Are you Polish?
How long do we have before you do a moonlight flit with all the money we've given you?
[/quote]
No. I'm a Yorkshireman by birth. But what if I was a 'foreigner'? The NHS can't exist without the foreign professionals it employs. All of whom pay income tax and NI and spend a large portion of their income on goods and services in the UK.

Does it matter where some one is born? Most of the UK population comes from immigrant stock if you go back for enough. And what anyone does with the money they earn is really up to them isn't it?


----------



## srw (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Agenda Doesn't taste or feel like gravy.


 Lidl basic value gravy, perhaps?


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

srw said:


> Lidl basic value gravy, perhaps?


No. Not even basic value.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> No. I'm a Yorkshireman by birth. But what if I was a 'foreigner'? The NHS can't exist without the foreign professionals it employs. All of whom pay income tax and NI and spend a large portion of their income on goods and services in the UK.
> 
> Does it matter where some one is born? Most of the UK population comes from immigrant stock if you go back for enough. And what anyone does with the money they earn is really up to them isn't it?


 
You jolly well tell him. He'll be calling you a racist next....


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911222, member: 45"][/quote]


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911222, member: 45"][/quote]

That will teach you to parody me MrP


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911212, member: 45"]No, sorry. It's carry over from the ongoing discussion with linford, who thinks that we should turn down foreign applicants -because they're only here for the money and will do one as soon as they've earned enough- in favour of a non-existent stock of suitable applicants who were born here.

I'm with you, that there are essential posts all over the NHS and that non-UK staff are critical in meeting need.[/quote]
Phew!


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

Now I've laid bare my qualifications, experience and income on the table who wants to seriously tell me I am on the gravy train?

Oh, and as well as having UK nursing registration I am an RN in both New Zealand and the USA. I had a green card in the US and a job lined up in Seattle (as did my wife) but we chose to stay in the UK on the birth of our child. We didn't chose to stay for the money or the lifestyle I can tell you.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Phew!


 
He's got to agree with you as in that same thread he fessed up to being responsible for hiring Nurses as part of his job.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Now I've laid bare my qualifications, experience and income on the table who wants to seriously tell me I am on the gravy train?
> 
> Oh, and as well as having UK nursing registration I am an RN in both New Zealand and the USA. I had a green card in the US and a job lined up in Seattle (as did my wife) but we chose to stay in the UK on the birth of our child. We didn't chose to stay for the money or the lifestyle I can tell you.


 But, but, but.....if you're not in it for the money then you must be in it either because you like your job or you enjoy helping people? If either of those is the case then Linford wants to cut your pay because we can't possibly pay you for something that is valuable, that you're good at and that you might enjoy!!!


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Now I've laid bare my qualifications, experience and income on the table who wants to seriously tell me I am on the gravy train?
> 
> Oh, and as well as having UK nursing registration I am an RN in both New Zealand and the USA. I had a green card in the US and a job lined up in Seattle (as did my wife) but we chose to stay in the UK on the birth of our child. We didn't chose to stay for the money or the lifestyle I can tell you.


 
I should flipping well hope so. For you to move abroad after the state has invested so much time and money in you would be such a betrayal really

I salute your ethic and take it all back. I'm sorry, but my less than rose tinted view of state workers will never be the same again - you are the exception to the rule


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> But, but, but.....if you're not in it for the money then you must be in it either because you like your job or you enjoy helping people? If either of those is the case then Linford wants to cut your pay because we can't possibly pay you for something that is valuable, that you're good at and that you might enjoy!!!


Its a balance of things. I could have left the NHS years ago and been selling pharmaceuticals, etc (ughh). I could have gone into NHS management and earnt more money (boring). I could (and might) leave the UK to work abroad. I do love my job though and am very good at it. That fact is taken advantage of by most governments. Oh, and I really object to being told I am on the gravy train or have a gold plated pension.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> I should flipping well hope so. For you to move abroad after the state has invested so much time and money in you would be such a betrayal really
> 
> I salute your ethic and take it all back. I'm sorry, but my less than rose tinted view of state workers will never be the same again - you are the exception to the rule


The thing is Linford. Where I work it's the norm and not the exception.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Its a balance of things. I could have left the NHS years ago and been selling pharmaceuticals, etc (ughh). *I could have gone into NHS management and earnt more money (boring).* I could (and might) leave the UK to work abroad. I do love my job though and am very good at it. That fact is taken advantage of by most governments. Oh, and I really object to being told I am on the gravy train or have a gold plated pension.


 

MisterP - he called you boring


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911285, member: 45"]Again, I've only ever worked for the NHS as a nursing assistant.[/quote]


So you work for the agency getting nurses for the 'bank' then ?


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> The thing is Linford. Where I work it's the norm and not the exception.


 

Now we are getting along so well that the misunderstanding has been resolved, you can call me Linf


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911298, member: 45"]Again, I've told you I've never recruited or employed medical staff.

Would this be easier for you if I drew pictures?[/quote]

But you fessed up to interviewing them on the other thread......


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Now we are getting along so well that the misunderstanding has been resolved, you can call me Linf


 Or as it's a free country, you could call him all the things you really want to call him!!


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> MisterP - he called you boring


No I didn't. You really must not go around misquoting people. I simply suggested I would find it boring.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Or as it's a free country, you could call him all the things you really want to call him!!


 
I'll have you know that my parents are alive and well and got married long before I came along


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> No I didn't. You really must not go around misquoting people. I simply suggested I would find it boring.


 
It was perhaps a little much to hope for on my part


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

What happened? I went off to do a bit of work and the thread died! I wouldn't leave a goldfish with you lot!


----------

