OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Andy_Faber]

A job's a job I say. Actually all these removal business is good money. Here they have it but the better money I gather is in home delivery. We have this service here - Redmart. People order stuff and you do the delivery as a contractor. I believe they provide a van too (maybe you have to pay to rent I suppose). It's about 5 bucks per delivery, looks cheapo but I gather you have something like 30-40 deliveries a day in 1 sector. So not bad, since you're looking like at say 150-200 a day less diesel and rental.

Maybe a job some of you might try if they have something similar in Blighty. Something I would consider when I'm ready to give up the grind of office work. If you're retiree or pensioner, also not bad job to do, me thinks. Keeps you active and a bit of your own dosh, earned by your effort.

getting in and out of a car/van 30-40 times a day, no ta!

[Romanis]

getting in and out of a car/van 30-40 times a day, no ta!

Good exercise mate. Plus I decided if I was ever going to do it, I'd hire a kid to do the delivering whilst I do the driving. Pay him like 50 bucks (yeah we use dollars here).
Plenty smart eh?

[roger_ramjet]

Hmmm, I am thinking you are about 15 years too late with that concept. Setting aside the Royal Mail options and those provided in house by the likes of Amazon, there are Fedex, DHL etc amongst the international majors and maybe another 10 or 12 decent sized companies who use a similar model. I would say, however that some absolutely suck when it comes to their utility. I will not name the company, but they sound like an Alpine Swiss "song", are so appallingly bad that I (and many others that I know) wil cancel orders for things once they realise that this company is the appointed delivery method.

Further down the food chain are the gig economy equivalents - bike/scooter etc couriers who shuttle around small stuff of rucksack size, and at the same time are a menace to pedestrians and indeed themselves.

We have also evolved a version which does not need delivery men at all - but simply drops off stuff at a local retailer for collection by the addressee. Argos for instance processes tons of stuff on this basis.

Your evolution looks slower, so jump the queue and get chateau Romanis designated as a collection point. You will get paid and can still sit on your arse at the same time! Win-win.

[Andy_Faber]

Hmmm, I am thinking you are about 15 years too late with that concept. Setting aside the Royal Mail options and those provided in house by the likes of Amazon, there are Fedex, DHL etc amongst the international majors and maybe another 10 or 12 decent sized companies who use a similar model. I would say, however that some absolutely suck when it comes to their utility. I will not name the company, but they sound like an Alpine Swiss "song", are so appallingly bad that I (and many others that I know) wil cancel orders for things once they realise that this company is the appointed delivery method.

Further down the food chain are the gig economy equivalents - bike/scooter etc couriers who shuttle around small stuff of rucksack size, and at the same time are a menace to pedestrians and indeed themselves.

We have also evolved a version which does not need delivery men at all - but simply drops off stuff at a local retailer for collection by the addressee. Argos for instance processes tons of stuff on this basis.

Your evolution looks slower, so jump the queue and get chateau Romanis designated as a collection point. You will get paid and can still sit on your arse at the same time! Win-win.

Not forgetting The Scouts Christmas Stamp and Deliver service, aka Dump 'Em In black Bags Down Gypsy Lane

[Trickytreesreds]

I like Bukovsky's analogy and there is a great deal of evident truth in what he says on the conceptual similarities between what the EU and SU were trying to achieve. I particularly like the "expand or die" aspect. The EU is a Ponzi scheme. His thoughts very much echo my left shouldered devil about the creation of a European Single State. Ramanag's fears about the economy rather echo those of my right shouldered angel. Hence my continued uncertainty over the route we are going down: but whatever we have chosen, we must remain committed to it, not compromise it and end up with all the bad aspects and none of the good.

Neither angel nor devil are emphatically persuasive - Bukovsky's fears may be illusory and perhaps more EU states than us will reject the single state scenario and so it wont happen: but the EU decision making is still basically made by unelected officials and dominated by Germany and their acolytes.

On the other hand, I think economically we would be better off remaining, despite the optimism of "new markets" put forward by brexiteers. There is uncertainty as to whether we will be better off in or out economically. On balance I suspect remaining will give us more economic certainty and stability - and it will be hard to reverse the running down of our production of physical goods that years of cheap imports and, subsequently, focussed european based industry specialisation have helped create.

These are the two counterbalancing issues that I think are important to the in/out debate. Note I say debate - the actual referendum result was determined in the main by a different fear factor, the quasi racist "free movement of labour" issue which seems to have swayed many - or at least enough in an already tightly balanced contest.

It may simply be that the twin issues of economy vs democracry/nationalism were too complicated for the man in the street to understand - and were probably ill explained and subject to a variety of mistruths from either side. But he could understand the "damned poles/romanians/czechs etc" argument because he could recognise them and scapegoat them, perhaps for his own shortcomings.

So I believe the referendum created a decision based on the wrong reasons. it may prove to be the right decision, but noone can argue it was for the right reasons.

The risks - to leave and undergo a difficult few years adjusting to a new trade environment, to perhaps see a rebasing of the our currency, sovereign debt rating and balance of payments. Perhaps an overall downturn in the level of economic activity, but long term this can be adjusted to and ultimately remedied.

To stay and perhaps succumb to the unitary state, the euro, the european army etc. Sure we can try to influence the direction of the U policy, but we will fail. We can only make a stand against the tide by leaving - Cnut didnt really stop it, and we are naive to think we could despite the "magic bullet" of a veto.

I (and probably many of the rest of us "old pensioners") will probably not be around by the time we can evaluate the decision in the cool light of the day: but it we are ever going to leave, then we have to do it now before we get irretrievably assimilated to the Borg. Its a shame we didnt leave when the euro was introduced...

If only the Berlin wall hadn't come down

Very reasonable reply RR.

My personal opinion on the EU, is that folks have either forgotten, or refuse to accept what happened over the last 45 years.
We was sold this "lemon", on the pretext of free trade and becoming "good buddies" with another 8 nations of similar economic back ground.

At no point was a political union/ army/flag/anthem/law court/currency mentioned, leading to a central political office.
What Bukovsky said, was seven years ago. It has become more truer and terrifying since his words and the drive to ever closer unification is in turbo mode now.
I accept we may now have to pay an economic price for a while to escape. But escape we must NOW, whilst we can.
But it isn't all about economics, as most moaners cling to.

We need to start again, it isn't a disaster. After WW2, Germany and Japan were on their arses, yet they rolled their sleeves up and got on with it.

52% Of the vote didn't want to be assimilated. We've our spat, lets get on with it.

[ramAnag]

My objection to Tricky’s post was to the Rees Mogg link which is pure, well spoken, gibberish. Couldn’t be bothered to sit through the second one after that so...no comment.

Sorry Andy, I’m genuinely confused. I’ll readily concede that there are some examples where money spent on public services could be better directed, but how can you spend less on services such as health, education and law enforcement when the demand and expectation is ever greater?

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry Andy, I’m genuinely confused. I’ll readily concede that there are some examples where money spent on public services could be better directed, but how can you spend less on services such as health, education and law enforcement when the demand and expectation is ever greater?

...and you help me make my point, you simply assume the demand has got to increase. I'm saying make the demand LESS. There are a hundred ways, and I'll only repeat my anecdote that there MUST be something wrong with the nature of the demand in A&E when the demographic is skewed so heavily away from the national demographic, which can only mean some people's expectations are wrong. Another is make the demand on the refuse service less by recycling properly/better

[ramAnag]

...and you help me make my point, you simply assume the demand has got to increase. I'm saying make the demand LESS. There are a hundred ways, and I'll only repeat my anecdote that there MUST be something wrong with the nature of the demand in A&E when the demographic is skewed so heavily away from the national demographic, which can only mean some people's expectations are wrong. Another is make the demand on the refuse service less by recycling properly/better

I’m not quite sure what you mean about A&E, but clearly when you have an increasing number of older people, ever increasing life expectancy and more and more cures for a variety of cancers and other illnesses then there is inevitably going to be a greater demand on the NHS.
Likewise with education...young people are now expected to spend longer in full time education and it seems that every time another social problem arises - from Aids to poorly fed children, to child abuse, to cyber bullying - teachers are the ones who, in addition to meeting their more traditional demands, are expected to deal with it. This sort of increase in expectation and demand has to be properly funded.
As regards the refuse service, I see your point, but aren’t you actually proposing something more sophisticated rather than necessarily cheaper?

[Ram59]

I’m not quite sure what you mean about A&E, but clearly when you have an increasing number of older people, ever increasing life expectancy and more and more cures for a variety of cancers and other illnesses then there is inevitably going to be a greater demand on the NHS.
Likewise with education...young people are now expected to spend longer in full time education and it seems that every time another social problem arises - from Aids to poorly fed children, to child abuse, to cyber bullying - teachers are the ones who, in addition to meeting their more traditional demands, are expected to deal with it. This sort of increase in expectation and demand has to be properly funded.
As regards the refuse service, I see your point, but aren’t you actually proposing something more sophisticated rather than necessarily cheaper?

Listen carefully, I shall only say this once, I have to agree with you here. Although I believe that there is a lot of money wasted in the NHS, year on year the spending needs to increase to keep up with the new treatments and longer life expectancy. I watched that excellent programme 'surgeons on the edge', carrying out operations which wouldn't have been possible until very recently. But the operations lasting 12 hours or more with 15 staff have to be paid for as well as the aftercare and future treatment for someone who wouldn't be alive normally.

There, I've said it.

[ramAnag]

Listen carefully, I shall only say this once, I have to agree with you here. Although I believe that there is a lot of money wasted in the NHS, year on year the spending needs to increase to keep up with the new treatments and longer life expectancy. I watched that excellent programme 'surgeons on the edge', carrying out operations which wouldn't have been possible until very recently. But the operations lasting 12 hours or more with 15 staff have to be paid for as well as the aftercare and future treatment for someone who wouldn't be alive normally.

There, I've said it.

OMG...approval from Roger and Ram in the same week. My life is now complete!

[Andy_Faber]

Listen carefully, I shall only say this once, I have to agree with you here. Although I believe that there is a lot of money wasted in the NHS, year on year the spending needs to increase to keep up with the new treatments and longer life expectancy. I watched that excellent programme 'surgeons on the edge', carrying out operations which wouldn't have been possible until very recently. But the operations lasting 12 hours or more with 15 staff have to be paid for as well as the aftercare and future treatment for someone who wouldn't be alive normally.

There, I've said it.

No arguing with that one Ram59 so there you are Ramanag you have the triple crown

[MadAmster]

The problem with just about everything at the moment is that successive governments have failed to prepare for the future that is today. The reasons for that are obvious, it would have cost money therefore increasing taxes and that would lose them the next election.

That is why pensions etc are screwed.

It's all down to politicians looking after themselves rather than the country.

[Ram59]

OMG...approval from Roger and Ram in the same week. My life is now complete!

Well, it is valentine's day, when you think of your loved ones.

[Romanis]

My objection to Tricky’s post was to the Rees Mogg link which is pure, well spoken, gibberish. Couldn’t be bothered to sit through the second one after that so...no comment.

?

Oh that's normal. Any sane person would object to the gibberish Tricky posts on politics.

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=Ram59;38800705]Well, it is valentine's day, when you think of your loved ones.

Lol