DaveR

I use the cycle path every day without too many problems. It would be better if it were more clearly marked as shared space because at the moment, as many have commented, plenty of pedestrians just don't realise that it is also used by bikes. And obviously cyclists need to ride differently compared to how they would either on the road or a bikes only route; this also applies to the Surrey Canal path where IMO too many people ride far too fast.

"Most people claiming to be 'working class' are as pretentious as those claiming to belong to a more exalted class. They're taking on a mix of symbols and cliches and wearing them like a cheap suit." Isn't that kind of beside the point? It remains the case that, if you are English, your choice of car, or of names for your kids, or favourite food or holiday spot, or any other of a myriad of little things is enough to enable loads of other English people to quietly categorise you, and form lots of other expectations about you. And even though the proper class system may be long gone, its traces are still easily discernible.

H, it wasn't a definition but an example (and a deliberately cliched one). The point is not to ask whether a self-emnployed builder is middle class, but whether there is an association between lots of bits of apparently unrelated behaviour, on the one hand, and stereotypically class related occupations on the other i.e. whether 'tribes' or classifications' still have an unmistakable whiff of class about them. Put it another way, if you suggested to my stereotyped dude that instead of holidaying in a cottage in the Ardeche he might want to think about going all-inclusive to Tenerife, what would his reaction be? And how would he justify it? Also, you say the self-employed builder is middle class, applying a Marxist analysis, but how relevant is that to modern British society and in particular to concepts of power and status? PS - you're obviously middle class because you remember nostalgically when you were a 'builder' - but you're not a builder.

You have to distinguish between a 'class system', where you can obviously link power, money and status to an identifiable social class, and what H calls tribalism, but where the hallmarks of a particular tribe look uncomfortably like class based norms. 100 odd years ago, the very idea of social mobility was unthinkable to lots of people, and the barriers were just as rigid between the upper and middle class as between the middle and working class. Now it's all all a lot more vague, but still pervasive. Take an imaginary 40 year old man living in ED. He drives a VW Golf, has a son called Charlie (whose hair is long and untidy), takes holidays in rural French gites, reads a broadsheet newspaper, bakes his own bread at the weekends, has a 'real' tree at Christmas, and has Mumford and Sons on his (old, battered) Ipod. If you had to predict whether he is an assistant producer at the BBC or a self-employed builder, which would you choose?

"Promoting ?horizontal? equity between people of similar incomes, with and without children; Providing a contribution from society as a whole to the next generation; Giving a stable element at times of financial insecurity caused by, for example, insecure employment or family breakdown; Offering an independent income for women" ....and these principles happily coincide with your own self-interest! Plus, when you look a bit more closely, what do those principles amount to? "horizontal equity??" Does that mean subsidising people who have kids for the additional costs? Doesn't really addrerss the question of why it should be universal. "Contribution from the whole of society"? Including from the minimum wage earning non-parent to the millionaire parent. A stable element? Not really the purpose of this benefit, and in any event the lower paid are inherently more likely to suffer real crises. Income for women? I thought it was for the kids.

The vast majority of households in the UK will continue to receive child benefit because no occupant is a higher rate taxpayer. In fact, most of these households have a total household income that is below the threshold. If you are currently receiving child benefit, and will lose it, then your household income is way above the UK average. Yes, there are anomalies, but they do not obscure the reality that nobody* who is genuinely in need of these benefits will not continue to get them. That's my test of fairness. *or such a small number as to be statistically insignificant - and those people will undoubtedly qualify for other benefits.

"Edited to add, if earning 42k genuinely puts you in the top 10 % of earners nationally, it's sad that someone on that bracket couldn't physically afford Childcare x 2 plus living expenses in ED. surely the government should be encouraging parents to work not making it financially impossible! Something needs to change." I don't want to be picky but the key words in the statement above are "in ED". East Dulwich is an expensive place to live. Sure, there are lots of more expensive places, but there are cheaper places too, where ?42k will go a lot further. On the childcare front though I entirely agree. There is a really compelling argument that public subsidies for high quality childcare pay for themselves through social and economic benefits. Edited to add: if anybody thinks that ED is not an expensive neighbourhood, go onto Rightmove and do a search for 3 bed houses in SE London, max price ?250,000.

"Now I know why I never comment on this forum! DaveR - no-one's paying me to stay at home. I work and contribute to the family finances but when we lose the child benefit it'll make a big different to us. Most working parents spend a large proportion of their salaries on childcare and the child benefit definitely helps with that." INMCD, this is not personal, it's political. There are unavoidable logical consequences of arguing against withdrawing child benefits from higher earners, and if you pursue the argument you have to face the consequences. You said that you will have to work an extra day to make up for the loss of the benefits, thus at the moment the benefits pay for you to spend that day not working. The benefits are paid out of general taxation, including, for example, taxes paid by childless people working full time on the minimum wage. They are subsidising that day you stay at home. You are arguing that they should continue to do so. I disagree. That's all.

"Gosh this thread has certainly brought out the good, the bad and the ugly and most disappointingly the vitriolic keyboard warriors. Fufton I am sorry to have referred to bankers above and should have left it at the super-rich. It was an unwarranted cheap shot - which is about all I can afford these days As others have said, it is not just about income but outgoings too. There will be those who feel they can take the hit and those that can't. Three years ago I would have gladly taken the hit but having since been made redundant we have come to rely on that money to make a significant difference to our modest but not breadline existence. Hadn't realised only those in the most direst of circumstances have the monopoly on not being selfish and being allowed to disagree with gov't policy. If caring about my family's welfare makes me selfish then I am guilty as charged. However, I am not a single issue person as some would like to think and the nasty judgements in some of the comments here reek of cyber bullying." Making allegations of bullying is just nonsense, I'm afraid. Arguing that higher rate taxpayers should retain child benefits is an argument in favour of redistribution from poorer people to richer people. That may be an uncomfortable truth, but it is true. No-one is accusing anyone of personally being selfish, or unworthy, or disputing that being a higher rate taxpayer necessarily means you are rich, or even very comfortable. But this thread is about opposing this policy, and I haven't yet heard an argument against it that is not based ultimately on the self-interest of the affected group.

"I'll have to go back to work an extra day from January to make up the shortfall." I almost missed this, which, somewhat ironically, is the best argument in favour of withdrawing the benefit. Why on earth should everybody else pay you to stay at home?

I agree that the method of implementation is, to say the least, imperfect. As I understand it, the problem is that there is no central record of household income, as opposed to individual income - that's why applications for means-tested benefits require the applicant to disclose whether they live with someone else who provides financial support. It's also the case that household income is not stable - people split up, get back together, move in with new partners - and therefore not that suitable for an assessment criteria. In terms of absolute fairness the question is straightforward - should all taxpayers fund a payment to anyone who has kids, even if they are a higher rate taxpayer? There may be valid disagreement on this, but unthinking opposition based on ridiculous cliches about 'Tory cuts' is not persuasive.

"I don't want to start a discussion re who should and shouldn't be getting it and how lucky people are to be over the income threshold." "The tories would love us all to fall out over this but it is about sticking together and fighting it." So, an appeal to dogmatism and selfishness? "We all want to keep our money regardless of how much money we've already got, and we're not interested in whether it's a good idea or not". Public money = taxpayers money = my money. Would I rather carry on recycling child benefit out of my tax bill and back into my pocket or see the money spent on things that might be better for the country as a whole? I'll give up the cash, thanks.

It's such a stupid, lazy assumption that employing a private business to deliver public services = a bad thing. Private businesses employ millions of people in the UK and already provide all sorts of essential services. I would be livid if my GP decided where to source services on political rather than clinical grounds, but that's what this campaign is all about.

Chippy, has it occurred to you that LFB saying they are considering closing 25% of fire stations may be either (i) a headline grabbing statement designed to aid their bargaining position or (ii) an admission that rationalisation may be a good idea? Either way, that fact alone is not a basis to say that cuts cannot or should not be made.

A friend of mine teaches at a French Saturday school in Blackheath where most of the kids are from mixed French/other language families. Her kids are pretty fluent but they still go, and started when they were pretty young. http://www.franceinlondon.com/en-Business-in-London-2005-grenadine-aschool-afrench.html

Never drink in a pub with a flat roof.

Er, OK. Is this the best thread to ask for views on pros and cons of upgrading to ios6?

I actually did the maths recently on comparing bike and public transport costs for commuting over 3 years. I have a fairly decent bike and a reasonable amount of kit, I get the bike serviced regularly, and I don't avoid all public transport costs. Even then the cost over 3 years is well under ?1500 compared to over ?3000 for 3 x annual travelcard and because I expect the bike to last me longer than 3 years the annual cost decreases year on year.

I also went quite a few times as a student, 20 odd years ago. Lunch was about three quid back then. I remember more than once waking up with a terrible hangover and going to the YMCA for lunch, despite the fact that i'd already had a curry after all the beer the night before.

Two completely different but excellent books I read recently: http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Titles/43352/it-had-to-be-you-david-nobbs-9780007286294 http://www.pooreconomics.com/about-book

This was the response from Martin Narey (head of Barnardos 2005-2011 and ex-chair of the End Child Poverty coalition) to the Save the Children campaign that suggested that poor families routinely cannot afford to buy enough food: "Child poverty in the UK is very real, but it?s not the simple poverty that Save the Children describes. Low income is certainly at the heart of it, but it?s also about poverty of aspiration, education and parenting. But I know why Save the Children is talking about missed meals: it captures public attention. Many times when I ran Barnardo?s ? and during the five years in which child poverty was our No 1 priority ? I declined to sign up to campaigns suggesting that British families do not get enough in benefits to feed or clothe their children. I did so for two reasons: because it?s not true, but also because such campaigns suggest that if we met the very basic requirements of a hot meal and warm clothing, people would think that poverty had been lifted. This isn?t to say that there are not emergencies when families do need urgent help with food or clothing. But they are generally short-term and caused by an administrative glitch, a marital separation, because money has been lost and sometimes, frankly, because it has been squandered on drink or drugs. Such crises are not symptomatic of the welfare state?s failure to provide families with enough money for the basics of life" I can't post a link to the whole article because of the Times subscription stuff. People may well steal food because on a particular day they don't have enough money to buy it, but that's clearly not the same as saying that there are lots of people who, on an ongoing basis, cannot afford to feed themselves and their familes.

Otta, there is a difference between fans being well-behaved (I'm sure not all of them were) and there being any connection between their behaviour and what happened. As an example, Taylor identified that observation of the crowds on the terraces was flawed and inadequate, and communication between those who could observe and others who were in control of the gates was poor. No fan had either the ability or the responsibility to affect any of that; they were just in a crowd that behaved in a predictable way, and should have been managed properly. I share your sympathy for many of the cops present. Contemporary reports include one effectively paralysed and crying because he didn't know what to do. The failings were largely in systems and leadership, although I have no doubt that the background expectations about how fans typically behaved played a part. An obvious contrast with Hillsborough is Heysel where although some of the background circumstances were the same (rubbish ground and rubbish police) it is clear that the immediate cause of the deaths was specific acts by a number of Liverpool fans (albeit at lesst in part responding to acts of Juventus fans). They too obviously didn't want anyone to get killed, but they bear the responsibility.

Just be aware that dietitians and nutritionists/nutritional therapists are not the same thing. The qualification process and regulatory structures are very different. Essentially, there are strict legal controls over who can call themselves a dietitian, whilst the same does not apply to nutritionists. http://www.bda.uk.com/

"Tom has talked about environment and health concerns when promoting meat free days to me. He's never mentioned animal welfare." James, you miss the point. All that means is that he is consistently disingenuous. The better question is, has he ever suggested any way of addressing environmental or health concerns other than by trying to persuade people not to eat meat? Regardless of the motives for Tom's opposition to the eating of meat, it is that opposition that informs eveything he does (at least insofar as he reveals it on here - maybe in his private time he plays the glockenspiel and collects vintage hair curlers).

"This issue will not and cannot be reconciled until both sides realise that this tragedy was a long time coming and it was based in the human condition, the history of conflict between football fans and the police and society at large, the the football industry abdicating responsibility for it's fans in a climate of fear." This is the most outrageous crap. There are obviously background factors against which particular decisions were made, both on the day and more generally (e.g. FA continuing to use Hillsborough as a venue) you can't ignore the fact that there were specific acts and decisions that can be traced to a direct causative link to the deaths of 96 human beings. See the Taylor Report: http://www.southyorks.police.uk/sites/default/files/Taylor%20Interim%20Report.pdf which despite its imperfections provides a pretty comprehensive account of the relevant events (although obviously not the police cover-up). The simple fact is that the primary responsibility for the safety of the crowd rested with the police, who are supposed to be trained and managed effectively to carry out this task, and they failed. Had they not failed, in all likelihood no-one would have died. Why they failed undoubtedly includes because some were predisposed to view all football fans as potential violent criminals rather than potential victims of circumstance beyond their individual control. Whilst that view may have been understandable, because of the history of football related violence in the 70s and 80s, it does not excuse the failures in any way because the police are supposed to be the professionals. I have been critical in the past of a wider tendency of Liverpool fans to lay claim to being somehow special and superior to fans of other clubs, but in relation to Hillsborough I have never been aware of anything other than an unwavering belief that the behaviour of fans on the day played no causative role in the deaths of 96 people, and a desire to have that proved. It has been.