Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 26 2011, 09:18 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12846318

The yearly tax-free payment to help people pay for their heating in the winter was worth £250 for the over 60s last week, and £400 for the over 80s.

But the payment will revert to £200 and £300 for the two age groups in the winter of 2011-12.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2011, 09:43 AM

This is Newbury News?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 26 2011, 09:45 AM

Are there pensioners in Newbury? I guess I could have posted it in the other one, can the admin move it over?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 09:47 AM

Does it really matter where it is? We don't have to wade through tons of off topic threads.

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 10:35 AM

Yes, and we know who is to blame for that; the labour party.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 10:37 AM

the people that voted for

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 10:46 AM

I can't argue with that one.

Posted by: user23 Mar 26 2011, 10:49 AM

No, it's not news specifically about Newbury.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 10:53 AM

I suspect it was a rhetorical question (and already addressed), but I find it disappointing that you and others see forum protocol as more worthy of comment than the the thread's theme.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 10:55 AM

I also suspect that there was a lot of people who didn't vote for the party have 'blood on their hands' as well.

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 11:09 AM

You mean who supported them anyway?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 26 2011, 11:36 AM

We can argue about the reason behind the deficit all we like, the fact is the Conservative Party and the Lib Dems promised not to cut the fuel allowance, even saying tha Gordon Brown and Labour were lying. Turns out it was just another promise to be broken.

The real story here is that it is the vulnerable who are getting hit hardest again, yet there was no mention of this cut in the budget statement. How many other gems are hidden away?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 26 2011, 11:40 AM

Richard, I really don't agree with winter fuel payment. Just pay an adequate state pension.

The state administration is so complex and involved with payments for this, and exceptions for that, the only winner is the Big Fat State. How much money does it take to administer the winter fuel payments? And that's just one of myriad rules and regulations that sustain the behemoth state apparatus. Even the Big Society turns out to be nothing but a money spinner for the Big Fat State and it's familiars.

Posted by: user23 Mar 26 2011, 11:40 AM

The threads theme is not directly related to Newbury and therefore I (and it seems others too) have no interest in reading it on here.

I see we're now into general politicking about the national parties too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 11:43 AM

I think there is a moral to all this. Don't make promises that you are not utterly convinced you can keep. And even then, I'd seek a second opinion.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 11:44 AM

Well what are you doing here then?

Like I said: I find it disappointing that you and others see forum protocol as more worthy of comment than the the thread's theme. That on its own suggests an alternative (perhaps political) motivation, to that which is apparent.

Posted by: user23 Mar 26 2011, 11:49 AM

The motivation is the forum not becoming a general talking shop but keeping it as a good resource for discussion of local issues.

It it becomes the former it looses much of it's value, this should be apparent to you. If it's not, ask yourself why.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 11:53 AM

Perhaps you should question you own honesty?

If people post topics that are not popular, they fade on their own merits, it is not for you to decide what is appropriate.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 26 2011, 12:00 PM

It is in the wrong place, not the end of the world but the categories are there for a reason. As someone already pointed out this has gone way off thread already, owing mainly to the fact that it is in this section.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 12:45 PM

And if this forum allowed one to either delete their post or repost it in the right one, don't you lot think RG wouldn't have done it buy now?

There are some weird people who post here. Pensioners are having their heating allowance slashed and all some are concerned about it whether it was posted in the right section. It's no-wonder this country has some of the problems it has.

Posted by: JeffG Mar 26 2011, 12:54 PM

Seeing as the winter fuel payment just covered a part of the difference in the inflated price I had to pay for a tank full of oil last winter, it helps a bit but not much. A swift resolution to the Libya business will do much more for my pocket that the allowance, however much it ends up as.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 26 2011, 12:54 PM

Instead of knitting for their great grandkids, why can't grannies just knit themselves a sweater?

Posted by: JeffG Mar 26 2011, 12:56 PM

A really thoughtful comment.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 26 2011, 12:57 PM

It is. Think about it. Why pay to heat an entire house when all you need is more clothes.

Posted by: user23 Mar 26 2011, 01:02 PM

How's the big protest going in London today? I presume you're there.

Posted by: JeffG Mar 26 2011, 01:02 PM

Have you ever sat in a freezing cold house in the middle of winter because you are having to ration your fuel in case it runs out and you can't get a delivery for a month or more?

No, I thought not.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 26 2011, 01:06 PM

Yes I have.

Moved into a house with ancient heating, boiler packed up in September had to wait until april the following year to be able to afford boiler to be replaced. No hot water, no heating.

I wore more clothes. My partner wore more clothes. A cold house is a healthy house.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2011, 02:34 PM

A cold house can be a death house for the old and frail. They suffer from hypothermia far more readily than the younger and fitter.

Posted by: bfg Mar 26 2011, 02:38 PM

Some of the comments here are disgusting. Richard Benyon said the Conservative Party would not cut fuel payments and now he won't say anything about fuel payments. Yet another broken promise from the Conservatives and Lib Dems.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2011, 02:54 PM

Well why sound so shocked? After all he is a career politician is he not?

Someone has to pay for the banking crisis, after all they are his paymasters who must be obeyed, and we all know who will not be paying though don't we?
The bankers have taken the money and it is back to business as usual. Their attitude is oh well not much harm done where's my bonus?

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 02:55 PM

You are being disingenuous here. The Tories and Lib Dems made promises as individual parties; coalition agreements changed that (the same would have happened if the Labour party had joined with the Lib Dems). Also; the promises both parties made were made before they knew the real damage Labour had left behind.

And the labour party did lie.



The real story HERE is what labour had left the coalition and this country. If anybody is suffering then that is thanks to the previous government; the labour government.

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 02:57 PM

This forum is not just for 'local issues' but anything that people from Newbury are concerned about.



Are you admin now User23?

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 02:59 PM

Does it make any difference? It is not a life or death situation but people just voicing their concerns/ opinions or whatever. Who really gives a toss what section this is supposed to be in? Unless the pedantic squad have taken over this forum.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2011, 03:05 PM

No still WBC unofficial defender of the faith.

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 03:21 PM

Or..... maybe an OFFICIAL defender of the 'faith'. WBC do take on odd types.

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 26 2011, 05:20 PM

This was hidden away so deep even Nick Clegg was unaware of it. When confronted on the fuel cut on a radio phone in yesterday NC claimed "we have increased winter fuel payments". When it was pointed out that Ed Balls had said it was cut NC replied "Honestly, I dont know what he is on about. He keeps throwing around wild insinuations". Mr Cleggs spokesman later issued a statement that Nick Clegg was fully aware what was in the budget.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 26 2011, 05:45 PM

I just stumbled on than link today, somebody posted it on facebook. What else was hidden?

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2011, 06:04 PM

If you stumbled on it then obviously the link

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2011, 06:12 PM

You still have time to take a trip even with all your posting Richard?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 26 2011, 09:37 PM

I may be mistaken, but I believe the £400 rate was a special/temporary arrangement. If so, that enables the Government to state they have not changed the rate - they are only not paying the extra bit. Standard politicking.

As for things not being in the speech but in the paperwork, again that is (sadly) standard procedure. Budget speeches especially are struck with this practice. There will be many more 'hidden' items before the Finance Bill passes into Law, and that will be exactly the same as many past Budgets.

While many pensioners may well 'need' the money, many others do not. Paying everyone is not in the best interests of the needy.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 26 2011, 09:43 PM

Yes it does. Should I start posting about Audi's on here with all the people from the car forum I go on just because I live in Newbury? Should we all be writing about Libya in the Newbury section because there's a chance someone in Newbury knows someone out there?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 09:54 PM

Yet you are quite happy post irrelevant trivia in the meantime. I don't think this forum is busy enough for it to matter which section posts are made, although obviously it would be better if people did create threads in the appropriate category.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 26 2011, 11:11 PM

As I said originally it is not the end of the world, but the categories are there for a reason. Which is essentially what you have just said yourself, except like most posters on here now, you can't help but have a go and treat every post as a personal argument.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2011, 11:34 PM

Fine, so you understand why we are having this conversation then, but I don't understand what value your last post brings, other than to demonstrate you behave like me.

My gripe is that some on here are happier to take shot at Richard Garvie when ever they can, and regardless of its merits. On this I think it is a petty issue. Why do people like user23 feel it necessary to censure someone on this issue. I very much doubt it is out of concern for the integrity of the forum as he stated.

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Mar 27 2011, 07:00 AM

I am pretty sure you are right. The coalition are simply now paying the standard agreed rate, it was Labour that paid an extra amount as a bonus in the 2 previous years. With the general election then due, it's pretty obvious why that extra payment was made and for all we know, had Labour won last year, they too would probably have stopped the extra bit.

I am surprised RG didn't mention that in his opening post, but as you say standard politicking

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 09:27 AM

The answer to your questions is yes. Just because this is a Newbury forum doesn't mean that Newburians are limited in their intellect (however, there is a good argument for it ).


Why should we - Newburians - go around to different sites looking for different subject matter when you've got a community here who can and probably are willing to discuss all sorts of subjects under one roof?

As for discussing Libya; yes... bring it on. Let us see what our fellow compatriots think of world issues; unless you are one of those that think people from this small area is too limited in their intelligence to discuss anything outside Newbury's boundaries? Again and reading some of the posts on here you've got a good argument for that view.

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 09:31 AM

People like User23 come from an Orwellian world where control by the few is the eventual goal. He doesn't like it so it shouldn't be on here. We should be welcoming differences like Richard Garvie so we can have good and different debates. Just because we are from Newbury doesn't mean we should go with the image of a brain dead and limited society. There is more to Newbury than Neanderthals going about their business.

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 09:32 AM

If people created threads in the 'appropriate category' then people on here would have nothing to moan about, which seems the local sport for Newburians.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2011, 09:35 AM

In opposition, it is a part of the political method to bring to the front the stories that are concealed, but I agree that I suspect that Labour would have made the cut as well. Just like with the 10p tax rate, I see them as election bribes.

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 09:48 AM

I.e.in other words they are hypocrites. They got us into this mess and then decide to attack the coalition for doing what they would have done if they had stayed in power.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2011, 09:55 AM

There is truth in there, but if we are to observe at this level, I am convinced the present government are headed by people who knew 'how bad' things were when they went electioneering. In other words, they avoided certain questions because they would be vote losers. In other words, they lied by omission.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 09:56 AM

They would never admit that, as they are currently saying what they would have done. That is meaningless waffle, of course; words in a world of action, saying what they thing we want to hear free of the strictures of accountability.

Parties talk of being in 'power'. They are not. They hold responsibility for a period 'we' decide.

Politics has become hypocritical by definition.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2011, 10:01 AM

I think they are.


Only from the options made available.


I'd say politics is hypocritical and possibly always has been so-long as man has been involved.

Like I said, the present government are in my view acting out policies they kept from the electorate.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 10:15 AM

When it comes to politics I take little account of what someone 'would do' if they had the chance. Doing the nasty bit now leaves the Conservatives with the chance to sweeten us up in time for the next election. Doing it slowly would likely mean we are still in turmoil in 4 years, which would give Labour a foot in the door to take back the reins just as the actions are about to bear fruit. Then they claim the credit........

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 10:17 AM

To be fair that is part of politics. The voting public want their comfort zone otherwise they wouldn't vote for the parties. That is why when politicians speak they are tuned to what the public want to hear and not what is right and correct. To get it right the public need educating. The fault is within our so called democracy.

I've been on the campaign trail and I've never met so many brain dead tunnel visioned people in all my life. In other words they want to hear what they want to hear and not the truth.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2011, 10:35 AM

That is right and is a part of Man's make-up. Many people I know make their minds up before seeking facts that support their opinion.

Posted by: user23 Mar 27 2011, 10:36 AM

Both the Tories and the Lib Dems seem to be eating into Labour's lead in the polls.

One recent poll had the Tories in front for the first time since December and the Lib Dems up to 16%,

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2011, 10:39 AM

I see this as an ongoing cycle of peaks and troughs. Things might change as the labour market changes.

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 27 2011, 11:08 AM

I do understand your point, but from the financial figures recently released it appears that the policies are not working. We could accept the big rush of pain instead of the drip feed if we could see an improvement in anything. At present it seems in four years time Labor could take over a bigger deficit than they left, the largest unemployment figures in history, a non existent NHS and uncontrollable inflation. We will also have the impact of new countries coming into the EU during the life of this government and the associated financial challenges associated with that.

Posted by: user23 Mar 27 2011, 11:27 AM

True, though it's quite unusual for the party with the largest number of seats to fall so far behind the opposition straight after the election then reverse this trend a year later, which is what has happened.

I guess the recession and the coalition mean, politically speaking, we live in unusual times.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 27 2011, 11:49 AM

I would wait and see how the polls react when the cuts really start to bite which will not be until later this year.

You have all the proposed redundancies to come yet, thousands of NHS Staff to go from the SHA's and PCT's.
Police, Army, Navy, Firebrigade, Local Authorities etc. The only ones that seem to have escaped without really suffering are the ones that have caused all of the financial problems. The gamblers of the financial institutions.

Not that polls tell you much as again it only tells you the answer to the questions asked, which means they are loaded to give the answer that the questioner wants.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 11:52 AM

Too soon to tell if policies are 'working', as they are not quick fixes and are affected by external forces. Usually the true effect takes a couple of years for the deeper rooted effects to come through.

As for the unemployment figures, 'in history' is a bit strong, and the simple number means little. Some say the number is over 4m. At one time that was the whole population......... For many years now the Government of the day changes the way that number is counted in order to demonstrate they have got the figures down. As for non-existant NHS, sorry, but that doesn't wash. So much guff has been spoken about the death of the NHS and it hasn't happened yet even though the original concept (and opportunities) are miles ahead of the 1947 model.

Look, if it was easy we'd all do it.....

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 27 2011, 12:07 PM

The Americans are already hovering trying to pounce on the new GP Consortia. The GP Consortia will have to employ external advisor's they are unable to deal the the administration of the billions that the NHS requires to manage. Make no mistake this is privatisation and the sharks are circling?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 12:13 PM

What is the NHS? A service that has to be run by Government down to the last swab, pill, nurse and cleaner? Or a structure to deliver health care to everyone without them having to worry about an individual bill for each visit to the Dr etc? Governments are notoriously inefficient at running services.......

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 27 2011, 01:23 PM

Not arguing about the NHS being run efficiently? But I do not like the idea of profits being creamed off for shareholders gain? If a GP is in charge of all the NHS budget then it actually pays him/her to not send you to hospital for treatment. GP's will be able to force you to go to the hospital private or NHS that submits the lowest quotation for the treatment that you require even if this happens to be many miles from where you live. As the old saying goes you only get what you pay for. You will now see a rash of private hospitals setting up to reap the profits from certain types of surgery etc that can be done at reasonable costs and make money for the sharholders.
Any other treatment such as cancer and other difficult treatments will be left for the NHS hospitals to deal with where no money can be made. Because the cream has been picked off then of course the NHS hospitals will run with an even bigger deficit.

Some essential services should remain just that, public services, and should not be run for profit.

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 27 2011, 01:45 PM

Directors of private firms are to sit on the board to devide who gets deals for NHS work - even though their own firms will be bidding for them.

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 01:50 PM

That is because people are starting to see how ridiculous their comments/ attacks are. Ed Milliband won't be the leader of the labour party at the next election.

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 01:56 PM

The problem isn't when the 'cuts start to bite' but when we have the next election. If the Tories turn it around they will win, if not then it is in the lap of the gods. Nobody wants Labour, and we only get them if the Tories/ coalition burn themselves out; as happened in 1997.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 27 2011, 03:03 PM

You got a link to that? There is a poll for the south west region which puts the Tories ahead of Labour (traditionally third place) and the Lib Dems are way behind in third.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 27 2011, 03:08 PM

It's a strange one. Ed hasn'treally done anything to boost Labour in the polls, but he isn't a negative influence either. He's neutral, and that isn't what the Labour Party need right now. We need somebody to take the attack to the coalition, and whether Ed can do that remains to be seen.

Cameron had a wobbly start, so all is not lost.

Posted by: user23 Mar 27 2011, 03:14 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/25/voters-cuts-coalition-poll

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 27 2011, 03:20 PM

Thanks for the link. The sample was a bit small:

ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,014 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 23-24 March 2011

Do you read the YouGov polls? They are based on 2,000+ and even the ICM & COMRes polls put Labour higher when the sample is larger. What is that quote about statistics? I just hope the South West Poll relates well to West Berks, that would give Labour a good representation or even control of the council.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 27 2011, 03:23 PM

Interesting that the Lib Dem share in that poll is worse than the last ICM one:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 27 2011, 03:28 PM

The problem as I see it is this. If voters have no one they feel confident in voting for then they turn to some other individual or party to make a protest vote? Parties like the BNP UKIP etc that is the danger.

We can't just stumble along dodging from one boom and bust to the next.
If voters become despondent then you will have the same problems as you have in the middle east at the moment
with upheaval and protests. We have bailed out the banks and financial institutions, ordinary people having to pay for their mistakes, and now they are just returning to business as usual as though nothing had happened. There really must be changes made or I foresee major problems not only for the UK but the whole world.
Ask any voter what they think of bankers and politicians at the moment and they will be at the top of the hate list. Double glazing salesmen and Estate agents?

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 03:44 PM

I agree with you here on both counts. I think Labour would have been stronger if David Milliband had won; which is what the MPs wanted. Ed is tainted because he got in with the Unions support.

Posted by: user23 Mar 27 2011, 03:46 PM

Generally the national trend over the past month or so is that Labour's support is declining whilst the Tories and Lib Dems' is rising.

What we might see in West Berkshire is Labour or the other minor parties picking up a few votes from the Lib Dems enabling the Tories to increase their percentage. As Lib Dem support seems to be rising nationally though this might not happen and it might be a case of "as you were".

West Berkshire isn't in the South West, by the way.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 05:43 PM

A note I have just received from a friend.....

"A wise person believes the only reason the grass is greener on the other side is because they use more manure over there...

Yup purer bullsh1t!"

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 27 2011, 05:59 PM

You talk a lot of sense. The bankers need to pay for what they did, and so do politicians from all parties. Remember, the Tories and the city were calling for less regulation. Labour should have ignored those calls, but they didn't. I'm not going to defend the Brown Government on everything, just like I don't criticise everything the current Government is doing. We need to be realistic and responsible, and that applies to local issues too.

I think MP's and bankers are likely to be neck and neck in the hate stakes!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 06:07 PM

And now we know why:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8408869/Bankers-pay-cuts-lead-to-5bn-tax-loss.html

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 06:40 PM

I agree, private companies making outrageous profits from providing public services is wrong
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8408774/Labour-left-taxpayer-60billion-bill-for-new-hospitals.html

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 27 2011, 07:24 PM

I agree entirely. Your link is only the tip of the iceberg? The PFI debate has been a worry for Strategic Health Authorities for some time now as it means most of the money coming in to fund the NHS for years to come will be used up just repaying the costs of the PFI's. Just wait until the GP Consortia take over. Think of the billions that the NHS costs the taxpayer and just think of the millions of profits the private sector will be able to siphon off. Do you honestly think the Americans would be interested in running our NHS out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not. The poor GP's wont know what has hit them. They are struggling to run their own surgeries. Without practice managers and advisors they would be at a complete loss. They are doctors not accountants, legal experts or administrators. They will not be able to run the NHS without an army of advisors and guess where they will come from. It will be the same as putting the foxes in charge of the hen houses. I believe most of the NHS staff can foresee exactly what is going to happen and are in despair. It will make the banking crisis scandal look minuscule in comparison.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 07:34 PM

I don't have a problem with someone making a business out of providing a service, as long as the cost remains well within the cost before they took it on. Councils and Governments tend to make a sows ear out of actually running things, so private enterprise can often deliver as effectively for a lower contract price.
It is not an ideal world, and there is not an ideal solution. PFI is proving to be outrageously enriching for the contractor.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 27 2011, 08:16 PM

Just take hospital cleaning as an example. Since private contractors took over not only has hospital cleaning standards declined but cleaners pay and conditions has declined as well so the only gain is the profits for shareholders. The poor patients have lost out again with infections spreading and dirty toilets and wards etc.

Catering that has gone to private contractors has declined as well. Look at the case that has just been won by a patient that, because the food he was provided with whilst in hospital was inedible, was forced to let his relatives buy and bring in food from outside. The court agreed and the hospital was forced to repay his costs.

I too am not against making procedures more efficient but because of all the time and motion studies etc carried out in the recent past the only way for private contractors to make money is to cut corners and workers pay and that usually means patients suffer in the long run and the taxpayers are not getting value for money.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 08:27 PM

Those issues - which I agree arise - are because the people who draw up the contracts are commercially inept and the level of checks on service delivery are laughable (or would be were it not so serious). There is an issue with so much public service that the private sector struggles with - many public sector staff are 'vocation' driven. They care. The commercial side tends to struggle to accommodate that as it cannot be costed. In particular, the managers tend to want to charge for that extra level of service leading to headlines about people being told to stop doing 'nice' things.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 27 2011, 08:44 PM

When have hospitals ever stopped people bringing in food? Most hospitals have cafes and restaurants in them anyway, I can't believe you could claim back your costs any more than you could claim petrol if you drove instead of getting an ambulance.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 08:50 PM

Sadly some people will claim for anything. 'Hospital food' has always been a (music-hall) joke. People forget the diet is designed to sustain their recovery. Few people need as many calories laying in bed as they do in work etc.

I've seen a fair range of hospital food over the last (too) many years. Whilst never haute cusine I'd struggle to say any was 'inedible'.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 27 2011, 09:14 PM

I run a contract for a private firm, within the public sector. My client is happy to shell out literally thousands of pounds a month for senior employees to get drunk, but will spend no more than £1.34 for a meal. We get complaints about the food all the time and do our best, but the consumers think we are the ones ripping them off.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 27 2011, 09:21 PM

And that is where the contract manager is deficient......... Too many in the public sector are inept with commerce, and at a loss for how to enforce the terms of the contract.

A bit surprised about the funding of alcohol consumption, as my limited experience is the public purse won't pay out for alcohol at all....
Unless you are at the House of Commons....

Posted by: GMR Mar 27 2011, 09:22 PM

What is an 'oublic sector'? You are not based in another country, are you?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 28 2011, 08:59 AM

You mean like Polls asking if an allotment holder wants self management for instance?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 28 2011, 11:52 AM

What is loaded about polling allotmenteers if they would prefer self management?

Posted by: Bofem Mar 28 2011, 12:18 PM

Oh no he's back

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 28 2011, 12:24 PM

You'd have to ask Cognosco - he is the one calling into question the reliability of polls.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 28 2011, 01:10 PM

Just making the comment that a skilled person can manipulate the answers given in polls by forming the questions to get the answers they require.

Like WBC with their questionnaires on what do taxpayers want in Newbury?
They only give you the options for what they have already proposed.

Posted by: GMR Mar 28 2011, 05:06 PM

I was never away....

Posted by: Strafin Mar 28 2011, 07:12 PM

You'd be suprised - it just comes under hospitality as a general cost. Alcohol is supplied as standard when someone leaves, when someone gets promoted, or when a VIP guest visits.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 28 2011, 07:44 PM

Well you have better (?) experience than me, then......... You have a particular public employer in mind?