DaveR

"it's pretty hard for me to "chill out" when everything I have worked for over the last 15th years is about to be flushed down the pan" Even after the proposed cuts in funding there will be far more students in HE than there were 15 years ago. Precious little to do with bankers or materialism - just less money coming in in taxes and big debts to pay off, so every area of the public sector takes a hit. Universities are not immune - why should they be?

"It wouldn't be right to force the unemployed to do only the most menial, unpleasant, humiliating jobs which the rest of us choose not to do." Many of these jobs are currently done in the UK by citizens of recently joined EU states precisely because UK citizens choose not to do them - and claim benefits instead.

"This would be funny if it didn't ring so true: [www.guardian.co.uk]" It's not the least bit funny, and it's a complete crock (as most of the Guardian readers posting comments recognise) Whereas this (statement from academic staff at Goldsmiths) really is funny: "We the undersigned wish to congratulate staff and students on the magnificent anti-cuts demonstration this afternoon," said the lecturers. "We wish to condemn and distance ourselves from the from the divisive and, in our view, counterproductive statements issued by NUS and [national] UCU concerning the occupation of the Conservative Party HQ. The real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts." So, a load of (middle class) students and lecturers want their fees and salaries to continue to be paid entirely out of general taxation (i.e. including everyone who didn't go to university) rather than by those who benefit most directly? Heroes, that's what I call them. I'm amazed no-one has posted this link yet: Daily Mash

The fact that a fire met with an inadequate response because LFB were on strike does not make any difference to whether the strike is justified or not - as Iancoubert said, it's either firefighters or management fault. He blames management, unsurprisingly, and he and others say 'resume fair negotiation'. But negotiation has got nowhere, because of the firefighters intransigence. So I blame firefighters.

"Kippers swimming in the tank in Fishmongers window" I think they only call them kippers once they've been smoked - not sure you would ever have seen them swimming!

We had rent control and (in effect) guaranteed tenancies for life before. It wasn't a panacea. If you had a secure tenancy you couldn't move. If you didn't have one, you couldn't get one. Landlords with sitting secure tenants had zero incentive to maintain/improve properties, and massive incentives to use dubious means to get them out. Also, this is easy to say: "We have absolutely the wrong attitude to housing in this country.....both as a commodity and investment and home." but not necessary easy to change. Changing landlord and tenant law isn't necessarily going to stop people wanting to buy - most of the people on this forum complaining about housing are saying "we want prices to fall so that we can buy"

CBI predicts strong growth for UK manufacturing

It's not fundamnetally about class, it's about money. As DJKQ points out, there are lots of people on low or average incomes in ED, but that also means low disposable incomes, so less weight in the local economy. Iceland does fine because even if you have a low disposable income you still need to buy food, and Iceland clearly serves a local market. However, Iceland is in a minority on LL in being a 'downmarket' brand because most of the money being spent in ED is being spent by a proportion of locals (prob not a majority) with a lot of disposable income. So, Iceland. It's not the most attractive building, but ED is (in truth) an architecturally unremarkable place, so WTF. I don't shop there, but the list of shops where I don't go is a long one, and I'm not agitating for any of them to close (although obviously I'll grumble about gift/candle/wanky shops). So, no opinion.

Loads of them did a really shit job - creating, selling, buying assets that (it turned out) no-one could really value properly, lending too much to too many people (who wanted to borrow but weren't worth it), creating perverse and dangerous incentives in their business and bonus models - there are lots of valid criticisms. And many of those failings led directly to them needing to be bailed out, and there being a massive credit squeeze, and lots of other negative consequences. And if UK corporate governance was more effective (and that's a whole other story) lots of bankers would be paid less and some would be out of a job. BUT, is it reasonable or sensible to say (as the first page of this thread largely does) banks are primarily to blame for the current state of the public spending deficit and there is a realistic alternative to fairly dramatic cuts in planned spending? Answer, no. And whether we like it or not, the financial services sector will have to play a huge part in the recovery we are all hoping is on the way.

If Osborne and Cameron had opposed Labour's spending plans, would they have done something different? When you're in power, you take the consequences of your actions - thems the rules. Are Labour going to be accepting joint responsibility for those bits of the current cuts that they would have implemented if elected? In any event, the deficit goes back well before 08, and the argument is that the UK was not as well-placed as other developed economies precisely becuase govt spending and borrowing had been allowed to accelerate from about 2002 based on GB's 'end to boom and bust'.

The total cost of the banks bailout amounts to less than 20% of the national debt. Some of that money will be lost, but, as has already been pointed out, a lot of it will come back in eventually, unlike other debt spending which is....spent. If you want tio blame someone for the deficit, blame the guy who started it - Gordon Brown. As Chancellor and then PM he took the UK economy into deficit, so that when the banks did fall over we were almost uniquely vulnerable to lower tax take from financial services + booming debt costs. Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. As you were...

H, you're talking shit. I know lots of teachers (actually teaching in UK schools now, not your Grandpa), and both what they tell me and the anecdotal evidence (not least from schools in ED) is that the difference between good schools and bad schools is leadership, and leadership is not about a contract with parents, it is about setting high standards and doing everything you can to ensure that teachers and kids meet them. You can only do that by having very clear rules and processes - it sounds dull but it means teachers have security and confidence that they can get on with the job. As to the contract, every school will have some parents who are either unable or unwilling to meet their end of the contract - how should a school treat their kids? The same as all the others is surely the right answer, thus exposing the idea of the contract as meaningless. I have absolutely no problem with bad parents being told to smarten their ideas up, and provided with support to do so if that is needed. However that is not primarily the job of the school, and these contracts are likely to have zero effect.

"I can assure you from a well informed position that the inability for some parents to recognise that education is a three way contract between the child, the parents and the school is one of the biggest problems facing our education system." I disagree, both with your analysis and your claim to be well-informed. A contract is an exchange of promises - you don't do your bit, I won't do mine. It's this kind of analysis that enables schools (or more likely individual teachers) to say "the parents are rubbish, the kids are badly behaved, why should I have to try?", or kids to say "my teacher is rubbish, why should I behave?". The responsibilities of parents, kids and schools/teachers are separate and distinct. What I expect from the school is a good standard of teaching and pastoral care, a clear set of rules, policies etc. backed up by strong leadership, and consistent, transparent processes. That's their job. Setting standards for parenting isn't, and bad parenting will not be addressed effectively by drawing up glossy pointless 'contracts'.

"I'm impressed by the generosity of spirit, by the desire to get involved, and by the positive ambition demonstrated by the parents on this thread. Not. If DJKQ is wondering why education is struggling in the UK she doesn't need to look far." Have you read the thread? Or indeed the relevant document? No, thought not. The OP made the point that the money could have been better spent, and later said that the school ought to pay more attention to providing more important information to parents more efficiently, e.g. dates and times of significant events. (I completely agree with the latter point). I don't like the idea behind these agreements, and I explained why. Then you chipped in with some glib throwaway nonsense from a position of complete ignorance. Well done.

Good post DJKQ (but you will find that people with, for example, Brendan's ideological point of view find it difficult to see the world in anything other than black and white, good and evil, bosses and workers, can or can't afford a house in East Dulwich etc.)

I got the leaflet. Notwithstanding the apparent statutory obligation, I have a problem with the basic idea behind it e.g that state education is provided by way of some sort of three way contract between schools, kids and parents. I can understand that this is superficially attractive, but it kind of unravels when you think a bit more. Parents are required by law to make their kids attend achool (unless they home school, not a realistic option for many), and kids at school are subject to school rules. Schools have a number of specific legal duties, and (in the eyes of most parents at least) an overwhelming general one i.e. to provide the best all round education for their pupils. None of these obligations are in fact interdependent - it is no excuse to truanting to say the school is not good enough, and, crucially, it is no excuse to being a shit school to say the parents and kids are not good enough, and these sort of agreements suggest that it might be.

Just to be clear, I have no sympathy with firefighters in the current dispute because I think they have a history of seeking to retain work patterns and practices for their own convenience rather than efficiency of service. That's perfectly understandable, but it's a luxury that has not been open to the vast majority of public or private sector workers for decades. It's also not inconsistent with firefighters being generally highly dedicated, professional individuals who perform a very important service, but in that they are not alone, and others have had to bite the bullet and change the way they work.

I knew a guy at college who decided that above all, he wanted to be a fireman. It was 7 years before he could get a job with LFB - there were 50 applicants for every post and generally first dibs went to guys with dads, brothers, uncles etc. already in. Why was it so popular? Because it has been common knowledge for as long as anyone can remember that the shift patterns are very convenient for working a second job and topping up what is already an OK pay packet without straining too much. That's why the firefighters are so desperate to retain the old shifts, and why they lost my sympathy long ago.

"What about just showing and teaching your kids good old fashioned good manners for someone who is older than you, and has likely been working and commuting for longer than you have been on the earth? There are far more older kids on the buses nowadays at all hours due to the free passes available." I'm afraid I think this is bullsh!t. I don't expect a 16 year old to give up their seat on the bus for me. I'm more than twice their age but I'm perfectly capable of standing. However I would give up my seat for a young child on exactly the same basis as I would an older or disabled person i.e. I agree with KidKruger. I do think that kids up to 4 or 5 should sit on laps etc. if there are no seats available and there is someone who needs one, but again I wouldn't class myself or another able-bodied adult as 'in need'.

The Tory Party is entitled to (and would be expected to) point out that Ed M was not the choice of Labour Party members or the PLP

"Hear me, East Dulwich" ?? Why would anyone see you as anything other than a complete tw@t?

Blah blah blah. It's been done to death on here. Some people are inconsiderate, some people have kids, some are both. Move along, nothing new here.

"the parents nowadays treat these places like playschools so please someone ban the children" is this really an opinion?

I have had one in the cellar for the last 3 years. No problems yet.

best I've tried so far: "why do women..." followed by "why do men..."