revolution saint

And no one has said any different, have they?

That is sad news, RIP.

Thanks, interesting that in those articles the brain drain occured during periods of low taxation and not high. Also, as I pointed out earlier, a fairer distribution of wealth would actually benefit those graduates who were leaving and not penalise them - one of the people quoted as leaving was earning 21K. I don't want to penalise the rich, the innovators or graduates - just the super rich. As VFTT pointed out it's a global issue but it frustrates me that whilst benefit scroungers are rightly vilified no one seems to worry or get annoyed about seriously wealthy people getting away with paying little or no tax. Even corporations do it - in 1997 Newscorp payed about 8% global corporation tax. We're all supposed to be in this together aren't we......unless you're very rich and then it's OK to forget about social responsibility. Edit: In fact when you look at those articles it suggests those countries which are "fairer" produce more graduates and keep them far better than us.

That's of course the standard answer and maybe that might happen, maybe it wouldn't. Does it happen in Denmark (I honestly don't know)? I'm personally sceptical that all of them would - maybe they would do what everyone else is doing, not complain and just get on with things (isn't that what most people on this thread are doing in the face of cuts?). We should give them the benefit of the doubt and give them that opportunity.

Well so far no one has said that fairer wealth distribution was a target of the last Labour Govt. In fact Blair actually came out and said that he was looking for equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. New Labour pretty much gave up on the idea - mostly because electorally it's a pretty hard sell. I think it's important to note that a fairer distribution would probably only affect the super rich rather than the merely rich and professional middle class. Something stupid like 5% of the country own 90% of the wealth of the country so 95% of people would actually be better off. You could actually argue that the last 30 years of govt., both Labour and Tory, has specifically introduced policy to make that 5% even richer so a reversal is long overdue and fairer. Other countries manage to do it and we're NOT talking about communist style flat wage caps for everyone here, so why not?

Good post, although sadly I don't think debate was ever really on the cards in this thread.

Of course it isn't a commie philosophy - it's a central tenant of both capitalism and a mixed economy. Without wealth distribution capitalism wouldn't work would it? I was merely arguing for a fairer system of it.

Where did I say Communism? Pretty sure that was never mentioned.

Cheers Dune, the only possible reason for posting that was to agree with me. Still makes me laugh as I suspect it does you as well.

We could also try a fairer distribution of wealth.

Damn, agreeing with you is becoming a habit.

You can also argue the public sector is the faciltator - it educates you, it keeps you healthy, it protects you, it empties your bins, provides a safety net when markets fail, it bails out the banks to protect your money, it regulates against unfettered markets. It's job is to allow the private sector to do theirs. When the public sector screws up it is accountable, and that's how it should be. Of course you can argue that the private sector could do all those things but it's not a place I'd like to live in.

Far too sensible a post you c * n t - don't you realise people want to get angry? Actually this thread is depressing, really depressing. Neither sector could exist without the other and both have their problems - there is waste in both, there is incompetence in both and there are also very good people in both. What does seem to be exclusive on this thread though is entrenched opinion by some that the public sector is wasteful, lazy and militant - it's almost pointless to debate because any defence has the inevitable reply of "well, I've got it harder".

I think the teachers should do a charity record for the private sector, maybe 'Do they know it's summertime'? That way they could draw attention to a forgotten group of people who as this thread has shown just get on with things and very rarely moan.

Absolutely - before the fixture list was released I was unsure about whether we needed any signings but now that we know who we are playing I've changed my mind........

Good thread, must haves for me are Niemi, Golac, Killer and Pahars. I'd include Ekelund also despite his few games for us. We seem to be blessed in the CB dept with Claus, Monkou and Fonte as well as Killer.

Golac, without any doubt.

Just finished "Innocent man" by John Grisham. It's a non fiction account of two people framed for rape and murder in small town America. I've never read Grisham before but as this was non-fiction thought I'd give it a try. Thoroughly gripping and amazing that this kind of miscarriage of justice can occur, well worth a read.

I like smoking in petrol stations, tripping up old people and yelling "Stop! Police" at people walking out of supermarkets.

You could argue that any thread on a forum makes not the slightest difference. Appreciate though that it might not be the most interesting reading and that's as much my fault as anyone's but there's no doubt that, whether you agree or not with the 60-65 concession, it certainly makes a big difference to those that are affected and they're allowed to complain about it.

I don't think McCleish is that bad but would be stupid to go to Villa at the moment anyway. I do wonder just who Villa fans think they should be able to attract though.

With the exception of Frankie Vaughan I don't think any of the others are that bad?

Has to be.

Most rape is by someone the victim knows, and a high percentage of that is by family members, so for the majority of rape victims it really doesn't matter what they are wearing on any given day.

I'm not condoning this at all but this is exactly what most of the public sector is saying. The police, education (NHS is slightly different) but everyone is saying the same thing - you can't expect to do more with less. The common (mis)conception is that we can achieve cuts and produce the same or better performance by cutting out waste - that's not the case and in my experience the waste is at senior management levels anyway, and as they hold the purse strings they're unlikely to be touched. I'm sure that's as true in the MOD as it is in the rest of the public sector.