| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:03:30PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:
Taxis need to be hailable on red routes - without that, London would become, in tourists' eyes, the only city in the world where the taxis would always sail past and never pick you up. The huge number of one-way roads and banned turns mean that a taxi pulling around a corner from a red route to pick someone up might be putting the fare up by a fiver - it would significantly reducing the capacity of the fleet to carry people home at busy times. Taxis setting down on red routes is harder to justify. Surely it can be justified on exactly the same grounds - without that, London would become, in tourists' eyes, the only city in the world where when you tell a taxi driver to take you to the Hotel De Posh he drops you a hundred metres down the road for no good reason. Since minicabs are only supposed to perform pre-booked journeys, I see little justification for allowing them to pick up on red routes because people want to be picked up from the Hotel De Posh, perhaps? because finding the right person, checking they are the right person and reprogramming the satnav takes so much longer than someone hailing a taxi, saying where they are going and zooming away. Not really. Whenever I use a minicab it takes no time at all for the driver to find me and verify that I'm the right person. *He* doesn't have to find *me*, *I* find *him*, by looking at all the approaching vehicles and finding the one that looks like the vehicle the dispatcher described to me over the phone. He verifies that I'm the right guy by asking "Mr Cantrell?", and I say "yes". As for programming the satnav - surely he would have done that before setting off. It's true that the satnav I had a few years ago couldn't handle trips with multiple stops, but modern ones can. And for an awful lot of trips, they won't need to use it anyway. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Compromise: n: lowering my standards so you can meet them |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:28:52AM -0800, Mizter T wrote:
I was thinking that the suggestion was perhaps to give both Taxi *and* minicab drivers the ability to take payment by Oyster PAYG They won't like that - think of the tips, most of which are "keep the change" as opposed to "hmm, the bill's GBP7.40, so add 10% and make it GBP8.14 my good man". And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Perl: the only language that makes Welsh look acceptable |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
|
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On 1 Mar, 13:44, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:03:30PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote: Taxis need to be hailable on red routes - without that, London would become, in tourists' eyes, the only city in the world where the taxis would always sail past and never pick you up. The huge number of one-way roads and banned turns mean that a taxi pulling around a corner from a red route to pick someone up might be putting the fare up by a fiver - it would significantly reducing the capacity of the fleet to carry people home at busy times. Taxis setting down on red routes is harder to justify. Surely it can be justified on exactly the same grounds - without that, London would become, in tourists' eyes, the only city in the world where when you tell a taxi driver to take you to the Hotel De Posh he drops you a hundred metres down the road for no good reason. Since minicabs are only supposed to perform pre-booked journeys, I see little justification for allowing them to pick up on red routes because people want to be picked up from the Hotel De Posh, perhaps? Last time I used the Hotel de Posh, it had it's own driveway where they could pull in. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On 1 Mar, 16:57, MIG wrote:
On 1 Mar, 13:44, David Cantrell wrote: On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:03:30PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote: Taxis need to be hailable on red routes - without that, London would become, in tourists' eyes, the only city in the world where the taxis would always sail past and never pick you up. The huge number of one-way roads and banned turns mean that a taxi pulling around a corner from a red route to pick someone up might be putting the fare up by a fiver - it would significantly reducing the capacity of the fleet to carry people home at busy times. Taxis setting down on red routes is harder to justify. Surely it can be justified on exactly the same grounds - without that, London would become, in tourists' eyes, the only city in the world where when you tell a taxi driver to take you to the Hotel De Posh he drops you a hundred metres down the road for no good reason. Since minicabs are only supposed to perform pre-booked journeys, I see little justification for allowing them to pick up on red routes because people want to be picked up from the Hotel De Posh, perhaps? Last time I used the Hotel de Posh, it had it's own driveway where they could pull in. The Devil crept in and inserted an apostrophe. I deny all responsibility. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 08:57:47AM -0800, MIG wrote:
Last time I used the Hotel de Posh, it had it's own driveway where they could pull in. Many Hotels des Posheaux do, or at least have a designated taxi drop-off area, but that designated area is the same place that taxis hang around (perfectly legitimately) to pick people up, so a driver dropping a passenger may have to stop outside the designated area. And there's bound to be a few exceptions which don't have anything. And then there's the eleventy zillion places people want to go to and from that aren't hotels and certainly don't have a driveway. Restaurants, for example. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence The voices said it's a good day to clean my weapons |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
And there's bound to be a few exceptions which don't have anything. *And then there's the eleventy zillion places people want to go to and from that aren't hotels and certainly don't have a driveway. *Restaurants, for example. Which people might also wish to park their car outside, but they can't because traffic flow is more important. If stopping and loading are not permitted, this should be for all vehicles. Neil |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
David Cantrell wrote:
And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that. Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to swindle quarter of a million quid out of the NHS? -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:
David Cantrell wrote: And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that. Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to swindle quarter of a million quid out of the NHS? It would, obviously, rely on people bothering to complain, and having a personal incentive to chase TfL if they don't sort it out pronto. And in any case, Lewis Day did get caught, and didn't they have to pay the money back, with interest? -- David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:13:48AM -0800, Neil Williams wrote:
On Mar 2, 12:40=A0pm, David Cantrell wrote: And there's bound to be a few exceptions which don't have anything. And then there's the eleventy zillion places people want to go to and from that aren't hotels and certainly don't have a driveway. =A0Restaurants, for example. Which people might also wish to park their car outside, but they can't because traffic flow is more important. If stopping and loading are not permitted, this should be for all vehicles. Yeah, that's great in theory. In practice, there's a huge difference between a large lorry stopping for 20 minutes to unload several days worth of goods, and a cab stopping for a minute or two. Even having several cabs do that causes far less disruption. -- David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" I think the most difficult moment that anyone could face is seeing their domestic servants, whether maid or drivers, run away -- Abdul Rahman Al-Sheikh, writing at http://www.arabnews.com/?article=38558 |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote: David Cantrell wrote: And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that. Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to swindle quarter of a million quid out of the NHS? It would, obviously, rely on people bothering to complain, and having a personal incentive to chase TfL if they don't sort it out pronto. And in any case, Lewis Day did get caught, and didn't they have to pay the money back, with interest? How would that disincentivise them from trying it again? No-one's been prosecuted AFAIK. Lewis Day still have the NHS contract and are still TfL-approved. The man responsible is now at another TfL-approved minicab company. The NHS managers who awarded the contract to Lewis Day and then told the whistleblower to take no notice of the 250k gone AWOL still have their jobs and pensions AFAIK. I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. If an NHS manager is paying double the going rate for beds or biros, it sticks out like a sore thumb on the balance sheets, but "taxi" contracts for unmetered vehicles can be awarded for way above the going rate without it being noticeable unless you study a map. After all, metered fares in taxis were introduced because the potential for exploiting taxi customers who are in an unfamiliar area was so much greater than the potential for exploiting mars bar customers or shoe customers, so the corruption potential of allowing non-metered vehicles to perform "taxi" services under contracts awarded by public service managers is obvious. One of the non-existant journeys in the Lewis Day scam was 105 pounds for 21 miles in the daytime (Hammersmith Hospital to Gerrards Cross), which is nearly twice what a ride in a hailed £33,000 taxi would cost - this would be robbery of the taxpayers even if the journey had been performed. When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
Mizter T wrote:
And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental", in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of backhanders, although not to managers particularly, who are just employees of the dodgy companies. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Mar 3, 1:59*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: Mizter T wrote: And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental", in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you. Though wasn't calling you that, that was what how I was characterising your comments - important distinction! Probably an unnecessary outburst on my part anyway, as I don't really take your comments such as those upthread to literally mean what they say... but perhaps I should... and maybe sometimes I do... aah the delights of ambiguity, all adds to the entertainment value I suppose... ;) |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:59 pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental", in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you. Though wasn't calling you that, that was what how I was characterising your comments - important distinction! Probably an unnecessary outburst on my part anyway, as I don't really take your comments such as those upthread to literally mean what they say... but perhaps I should... and maybe sometimes I do... aah the delights of ambiguity, all adds to the entertainment value I suppose... ;) My words meant what they said (except for the bit about me having a psychiatrist, which was joke). I did say it was a suspicion rather than a proven fact. But as we found with immigration, Labour is very good at feigning incompetence while achieving exactly what they secretly wanted all along. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Mar 3, 12:16*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
Yeah, that's great in theory. *In practice, there's a huge difference between a large lorry stopping for 20 minutes to unload several days worth of goods, and a cab stopping for a minute or two. *Even having several cabs do that causes far less disruption. It can still cause a lot of disruption. And a car driver isn't allowed to stop to drop off (though they may still do it anyway), which takes a fraction of the time it takes to complete the transaction and leave a taxi. Neil |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. Plenty of time to be temperate when you're dead. Right now, you're on usenet. tom -- But in the week its like Urbino under the wise rule of Count Federico, only with a better football team and the nations most pleb-infested Waitrose. And shops selling size 12 stilettos. -- Jelb, on Holloway |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:
On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of backhanders True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets, which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption. tom -- But in the week its like Urbino under the wise rule of Count Federico, only with a better football team and the nations most pleb-infested Waitrose. And shops selling size 12 stilettos. -- Jelb, on Holloway |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Mar 3, 8:32*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 1:24pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45�pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! ^^^ Advanced-trolling, even! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. Plenty of time to be temperate when you're dead. Right now, you're on usenet. Fairs. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On 3 Mar, 20:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote: On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of backhanders True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets, which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption. They have found ways of making backhanders legal. It's not just hiding the borrowing, it's also borrowing much more and giving much more of it away to companies (from which individuals get rich) for less work getting done. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:00:38AM -0800, MIG wrote:
I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of backhanders, although not to managers particularly, who are just employees of the dodgy companies. While they may facilitate them, the *reason* for doing them is to keep the costs off the books so they can fulfill their pledge to spend vast amounts on $popular_thing without having to raise taxes to pay for them, and without appearing to be on a debt-funded spending spree. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig "Cynical" is a word used by the naive to describe the experienced. George Hills, in uknot |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:
On 3 Mar, 20:49, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote: On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of backhanders True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets, which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption. They have found ways of making backhanders legal. It's not just hiding the borrowing, it's also borrowing much more and giving much more of it away to companies (from which individuals get rich) for less work getting done. So you *do* think that one of Labour's goals was to channel more money to the contracting companies? Again, do think their goal was specifically to enrich individuals, or that whole industry? And can i ask what makes you think that was the case? tom -- .... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On 4 Mar, 12:44, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote: On 3 Mar, 20:49, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote: On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: [snip] I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...] That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were! When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour. The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/ party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt managers - is simply ****ing mental. And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps it could have been expressed in more temperate tones. I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of backhanders True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets, which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption. They have found ways of making backhanders legal. It's not just hiding the borrowing, it's also borrowing much more and giving much more of it away to companies (from which individuals get rich) for less work getting done. So you *do* think that one of Labour's goals was to channel more money to the contracting companies? Again, do think their goal was specifically to enrich individuals, or that whole industry? And can i ask what makes you think that was the case? I don't think it was me who made any original comments that you are referring back to. I should imagine that their main goal at any time is to remain both funded and elected. They act in ways consistent with keeping happy all the people who need to be kept happy in order to achieve that. It doesn't require an explicit conspiracy. I think that it would be a Good Thing if any company (whether contracted at the time or not), that was in the business of providing any kind of service that COULD be contracted in a PFI/PPP type deal, was prohibited from donating to any political party, and if elected representatives were prohibited from being employed by any such company. |
Taxi insurance for multiple people?
On 4 Mar, 11:52, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:00:38AM -0800, MIG wrote: I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of backhanders, although not to managers particularly, who are just employees of the dodgy companies. While they may facilitate them, the *reason* for doing them is to keep the costs off the books so they can fulfill their pledge to spend vast amounts on $popular_thing without having to raise taxes to pay for them, and without appearing to be on a debt-funded spending spree. The only reason why political parties do anything is in order to get funded and elected. All sorts of little things contribute to a situation where that's more likely to be achieved. Plus they may get it wrong anyway, with money not going where they expect it to and/or not having the desired effect. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk