DaveR

"The Conservatives fundamentally (and imo doggedly) believe that the state should commission services, not run them." This is overly simplistic, but there is a question of principle involved, and I think it's this; where public money is spent providing services that could be simply bought, why not just give people the money and allow them to buy what they want? After all, that's what happens with benefits and pensions (and it hasn't always been that way - state provision for the poor used to be the workhouse). It obviously doesn't work for police/courts/military etc., but people used to think that it was natural for govt to run the telephone network, whereas you'd have to be very ideologically pure to argue for the nationalisation of BT. Big State fans always decry choice in the context of public services, or at least are dismissive - see above, people "just want to use their local...." but it seems to me the evidence is absolutely clear that when people have a choice they use it and the effect is to make services better. look at all the complaints on here about schools, where what people are really angry about is insufficient choice. That's why the argument about private sector profits etc is a bit of a red herring - as I've said before, I would always expect 'not-for-profit' entities to dominate an area like healthcare. The real issue is whether healthcare is provided by people independent of politics, where both costs and outcomes are transparent, and with a sufficient element of consumer choice to get some basic market forces in play, or by the NHS.

I am sympathetic to the argument but I can't see the point of petitioning the Dulwich Estate, who presumably made their minds up when they put in the planning application. The application is still open for comments so better to voice concerns there, i would have thought. I note that the head teachers of the local primary schools have submitted comments very much reflecting the concerns above, so let's hope they are taken account of.

The NHS has been trying to take advantage of the 'economies of scale' for at least 20 years - ditto the MoD, and that hasn't gone too well. IMHO it's the wrong target - the likely effect of economies of scale diminishes once you are already a large purchaser, and big NHS hospitals (let alone hospital trusts) are already the biggest players in the market. If you read this BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33071066 what is notable is that even though it comes to same slightly tired conclusions about scale, the results of the enquiry show that there are already enormous gaps in efficiency and spending between hospitals of comparable size. The reasons are not identified but anybody who has worked in large public and private sector organisations will know that it always comes down to leadership and internal culture. And it's difficult to establish a consistent culture in an organisation with over 1 million employees - that's why some NHS hospitals are amazing and others mistreat, abuse and ultimately kill people.

Parliament hinges allow you to open the doors 180 degrees i.e. flat against the wall

"There is a limit to the number of residences allowed within a given space." I understand that. I just wondered why there was so much speculation that the developer was trying to sneak in more residential space, and whether there had been objections in principle to converting office to residential.

Could someone explain the basis of the objection to converting the existing office space to residential? Is the current office space occupied?

The choice between public and private is not the real issue here - it's between a single monolithic organisation and an essentially organic system driven by (publicly funded) demand. In essence it's the choice between the state education system we had until recently and the one that we are heading towards. There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of profit, and the profit motive. Profit just means surplus, it doesn't necessarily mean distributed profit. Most so-called 'not-for-profit' organisations are nothing of the sort - they make profits but reinvest all of them in their operations, or they save them for future investments. That's what all sensible organisations do when they are free to make their own decisions. There is no reason why a publicly funded health system needs more than an absolutely minimal bureaucracy, to administer the funding and monitor standards - everything else is wasted time and money. FWIW, I agree that a 'non-profit' system should, all things being equal, beat a profit driven system i.e. one that is driven to make returns to shareholders. Funnily enough, in the US, where healthcare outcomes are the best in the world, 70% of hospitals are non-profit. Unfortunately its also the most expensive in the world because of the ludicrous private insurance system. A system with a simple public funding model and an essentially free market for providers, but with big incentives for not-for-profit organisations should beat any other system hands-down. With the added bonus of stopping idiot politicians endlessly pontificating about the NHS.

Lots of posts pointing out (correctly) that on average London schools are as good or better than the average in other areas. That doesn't alter the fact that if, for example, you are set on sending your child to a grammar school, there are places you can move to within commuting distance of London where that can be a firm plan rather than a vague hope, nor that there are other places where there are concentrations of very good schools so the chances of getting a place at one are higher than SE London, where different admissions processes etc. make it all a bit random (or at least it feels that way). I'm not surprised that some people move out and cite this as one of the reasons. On the wider question though it seems pretty clear to me that generally London has never been safer or more accessible to teens than it is now, and that is a huge positive, notwithstanding that the 'booze drugs and boredom' stereotype of growing up anywhere else is undoubtedly exaggerated on here. FWIW, I'd at least consider moving back to my home town (Cambridge) if work permitted, but there's no way I'd commute from there to London. Plus, Cambridge is not exactly any old small town, and the houses are as expensive as round here, so no great incentive.

There was quite a lengthy thread on this before, and I should say again that these charges are not unenforceable per se, but rather they are very often not enforced. The real driver behind this is the desire of owners of car parks (sometimes the retailer itself, sometimes the commercial landlord) to subcontract management of parking either at no cost to themselves or even with the benefit of getting some revenue from it. However, I suspect that this business model may be bust, at least in part because the retailers have been unwilling to allow their subcontractors to resort to legal action on a mass basis, which fatally undermines the model. The best policy is probably still to refuse to pay and to dispute any liability on both factual and legal grounds, but don't think that you could never be pursued for the charge.

"And is spain warm enough in winter?" Depends when, where, and warm enough for what. There isn't anywhere in mainland Spain that is reliably warm enough in January and February to go to the beach and swim in the sea, for example, but most of Spain is warm enough to feel like you have 'escaped winter'. On the general question, again it depends on how warm you want and whether you want town/city, countryside, beach. If you want proper hot weather you need to go tropical or southern hemisphere (unless you like deserts), and if it was me I'd probably go to SE Asia, but that's largely because I've been going there every winter for the last 15 years or so. For somewhere that will be nice and warm Southern California is a good shout, but I'd go San Diego over LA. In Europe I'd either go to Spain (Barcelona or Girona) or Sicily.

"If you've been unfortunate enough to be sick or suffer as a result of an accident overseas, you wouldn't need to ask that question." This is just narrow minded rubbish. Public healthcare in most developed world countries is comparable to that in the UK overall, and certainly measured in terms of health outcomes e.g. cancer survival rates the NHS is nothing special: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/24/uk-cancer-survival-rates-trail-10-years-behind-those-in-european-countries My real objection to the current NHS structure is that it means healthcare is inevitably politicised - sometimes it seems like every big decision generates a campaign against it and politicians get sucked in, for example arguing to keep local hospitals open when all the professionals agree that ultimately people will be better served if they close and services are concentrated. Similarly, any discussion of costs is held in an essentially political environment - people talk about 'cuts', whereas in most big organisations it is taken for granted that looking to save costs by being more efficient is an ongoing everyday task. The NHS works pretty well in spite of that, and there's plenty of evidence that it actually provides good value, but even on that score it seems likely that at least part of the value gain derives from artificially holding down wages, hence British nurses etc going overseas. The best short analysis of public healthcare I have read was by Tim Harford in his book, The Undercover Economist. You can get a flavour from these articles: http://timharford.com/2009/10/a-brilliant-and-doomed-template-for-healthcare-reform/ http://timharford.com/2014/05/healthcare-the-final-reckoning/

"Or get a car and do away with all this cycling nonsense." I have a car, and very useful it is too. I'd particularly recommend using a car to go to IKEA, for example (I did it once on public transport, and it clearly wasn't optimal). But the car's no good for commuting from ED into the City - it's no quicker than the bike and parking is ?25/day.

http://prepaid-data-sim-card.wikia.com/wiki/United_States

"Hmm. I get the DaveR explanation, but I still don't know how to switch between the gear thing with three clicks and how that relates to the gear thing with 7 clicks. Do I need to go all way to top of one before changing the click on the three or can you switch when you're in the middle? " So, people seem to think I did an OK job with the last explanation (thanks guys, I'm touched) so I'll have another go. I said before that how high or low a gear is is determined by the ratio between the number of teeth on the pedal cog and the number of teeth on the wheel cog. So, a 40/20 ratio means pedal cog is twice the size of wheel cog, one turn of pedals = two turns of the wheel, but 40/10 is four times the size, and so a higher gear. If you have a 40 pedal cog and wheel cogs of 10/20/30/40 you have a simple sequence of four gears from high to low. But if you have two pedal cogs, 40 and 20, and the same four wheel cogs, you have eight different combinations, but they don't run in a nice sequence from high to low. For example 40/20 and 20/10 are different combinations of cogs but the same ratio, so for practical purposes they are the same gear - number of pedal turns vs wheel turns is the same. So, the short answer to the specific question is no, you don't need to go all the way to the top, and in fact you're probably OK to ignore the 'three' almost all the time. The three clicks will be the three cogs at the front, that I've called pedal cogs, and the seven are the ones at the back, wheel cogs. If you don't change the front ones at all and just use the rear ones, each time you click to a higher number you will go into a higher gear, if you click to a lower number you will go into a lower gear. With 7 gears the gaps between each one won't be too big so it should be fairly smooth and easy moving up or down by one. In practice, if you find your optimal everyday gear combination, where you can bowl along at a comfortable pace without feeling like you have to really push hard on the pedals, you probably only want to ever shift up or down one or two clicks. I spend 80% of the time riding on H5 (High gear, or big cog on the front, and number 5 out of 8 on the back), at least when commuting. I shift down to H4 if I can see I'm going to have to stop at a red light, for example (and yes, I do invariably stop) because it makes it easier to start again. I shift up to H6 or occasionally H7 when I'm on the Old Kent Road and some proper space opens up, and it's time to hit the gas. I pretty much only change to the Low front cog going up Dog Kennel Hill. Obviously you can avoid all the fuss by riding a single speed bike, but you might have to grow a beard and get some tattoos.

"I am no expert, but alas I suspect the staff will be buggered. Iceland is not being taken over by M&S, so TUPE Regulations probably won't apply." I am also no expert, but TUPE is definitely not limited to corporate takeover situations, so Iceland staff should be getting proper advice.

"I'm a little bit torn on this. I have no moral issue with it at all, so long as you're not pissed. And yet, I dunno, I'd just feel a bit scummy doing it. I'm no goodie goody, but drinking in a kid's playground just wouldn't feel right for me." This. Parks are for everyone, pubs are essentially adult spaces where kids are allowed. Kids playgrounds are kids spaces where adults are allowed. There's just no need to crack open the beers.

I explained this to my kids recently, so I'm happy to have a go. Imagine a kids trike, where the pedals stick out from either side of the front wheel. As you turn the pedals it turns the wheel, so 1 turn of the pedals = 1 turn of the wheel. However much effort it takes to turn the pedals round it will always take you the same distance. On a 'proper' bike the pedals are connected to the wheel by a chain and two cogs, one on the pedals and one on the wheel. If the two cogs are the same size, then just like the trike, one turn of pedals = one turn of wheel. But if the pedal cog is twice the size of the wheel cog, each turn of the pedals turns the wheel twice, making you travel twice as far. Carrying you and your bike twice as far needs more effort from you, so it feels harder to pedal - this is a higher gear. If the pedal cog is half the size of the wheel cog you only go half as far for each turn of the pedals, so it feels easier - it's a lower gear. That's it really. The size of cogs is measured by the number of teeth they have, and how high or low gears are is determined by the ratio of teeth between front cog and back cog. The most efficient way to cycle (allegedly) is to try and maintain a steady rate of turning the pedals, so if you feel it getting harder (going up a hill, into the wind, feeling tired) you change to a lower gear, keep pedalling at the same speed, but actually travel a bit slower (each turn of the pedals takes you a shorter distance). I'm sure there are many others who could explain it better, but it seemed to work with the kids. If you actually want someone to fix your gears I would recommend a chap who posts on here as 'mlteenie' and is both an excellent bike mechanic and an all round good guy.

Edwardes in Camberwell often have second hand kids bikes - they're a mixed bag but you can find a good one and not too expensive. Decathlon also worth a try.

Lou, just because people don't talk to you, doesn't mean they don't talk to each other. Do you think the neighbours might have upped sticks and gone because they got a bit tired of listening to you banging on?

Indoor sky-diving? http://www.airkix.com/

I completely agree that Cyclist is the person who is best placed and ultimately responsible for the decisions he makes, and also that it is very easy for well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) onlookers to get in a twist about perceived risk on a very slight basis. The question asked at the very beginning was "do I intervene?" and the very clear answer is "no" - this is so far removed from neglect/abuse type behaviour that tbh it should be obvious. All that having been said, as a cyclist who is in the process of introducing my own kids to cycling safely and confidently on the road, if you were a friend of mine, I'd say get the little one a helmet. I understand all the arguments, I'm familiar with the data, and I also know how it feels like you're caving in to the H&S fascists etc. I agree that statistically it's unlikely to offer a lot of protection in the most typical serious incidents, but it's not going to do any harm, and it might help if you both take a spill. But it is completely your call.

"They > also represent exactly the type of voter you and others have said the party are struggling to > connect with." Union members = c.25% of the workforce (but 55% in the public sector vs 15% in the private sector), and numbers are likely to go down as the overall number of public sector employees continues to fall. Also, older than average, and disproportionately located in Scotland/N Ireland/Wales/North of England. So, a shrinking minority and, I suspect, one that continues to overwhelmingly vote Labour, in England and Wales at least. Not really the voters Labour needs to target to win seats from the Tories. "> If you cut that link, the party ceases to perform its raison d'etre." And, as Loz observed, that's the so-called 'existential' challenge for the Labour Party, if they genuinely want to pursue policies that appeal to voters in the centre. "Like it or not, unions are not popular outside the union movement." Interestingly, union membership in the private sector has been creeping up in recent years - see in particular the 'one firm' unions that are a product of the 90s TU legislation. I think there is a pretty wide recognition that unions can perform an essential function in ensuring that employees are not exploited/treated badly, but that is currently outweighed by the distaste for political grandstanding and unwarranted militancy amongst largely public sector workers, may of whom are pretty well paid with generous pensions etc.

"Many ?better off? people believe that they are ?better off? today than their parents or grandparents were because of the structural changes in society over the last century driven by the Labour movement. Free secondary education, comprehensive schools and expansion of access to university have all driven massive social mobility. It is now completely normal for white collar professional people, from the kind of ordinary office workers who live in East Dulwich to Emily Thornberry et al. in their large north London houses, to come from industrial working class or similar blue collar lower class backgrounds. Because of the role the Labour party played in creating the social changes these people as individuals, and their communities, have benefited from there is still a great degree of loyalty to the party. This is a loyalty based on a century of history, often oral family history, not whether there would be a tax cut after the next election. I was a Labour party fund raiser in 1991 and talking to donors then the impression I got was that they were ideologically committed to the Labour party as a means of social change." And if you believe that santimonious, self-serving romantic drivel you'll believe almost anything (though if you speak mainly to well off Labour donors it's easy to see how you might go astray). Public sector workers (including teachers, central govt civil servants, NHS staff etc) are effectively Labour's 'payroll vote' and are significantly over-represented in inner London, alongside more traditional Labour voters, and the clasic left intelligentsia. The aspirational working classes have traditionally voted Tory, hence their dominance in those part of outer London, Essex etc. NB - free secondary education goes back pretty much to Balfour (1902), although many would credit RAB Butler (a Tory) as the real founder of modern secondary education.

"The London Boroughs that stayed or went blue demographically are higher in income. It's a clear divide." Not quite so clear. Bexleyheath, Romford, Chingford = Tory, Hampstead, Ealing and Dulwich = Labour. The demographic profile of London has changed considerably in the last 20 years, so that many outer London boroughs have become comparatively poorer while inner London areas have extreme variations pretty much next door to each other. The Tories have always been strong in the suburbs and Labour in the inner city and that has persisted to a great extent, but it's obviously about more than income. http://londondatastore-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/instant-atlas/gla-household-income-estimates/atlas.html "And of course, the biggest lie of the Tory campaign has always been blaming Labour for an economic mess. No, the global banking crash caused the recession, and the economy had started to recover by the 2010 election." Interesting that every credible Labour figure since the election has said that one of the reasons for defeat was a refusal to face up to the economic failures of the previous Labour govt, most particularly that net borrowing increased year on year from 2000 to 2006 despite tax receipts rising and the economy apparently healthy. This is the famous accusation that Labour failed to "fix the roof when the sun was shining", and, like it or not, the figures back it up. GB claimed that this was 'investment' and thus his infamous golden rule remained in place, but the reality is that a large proportion of the borrowed money disappeared in a public sector hiring spree that has been in the process of being reversed since 2010.

I always use WhatsApp or Viber when I'm outside the EU for calling or messaging to the UK. In the Far East, particularly, local Sims with data are pretty cheap, plus there is wifi everywhere, so way cheaper than UK roaming charges.