DaveR

I disagree with Corbyn about literally everything, but you can't really argue that he doesn't have a mandate from the membership of the Labour Party to lead it. If MPs don't like it they should step down and fight their seat as an independent or under another party banner - that's what Galloway et al had to do. The party has done itself no favours by trying to change the rules because they don't like where they have ended up. Like I said before, Labour under Corbyn is realistically not going to pick up many votes from Tories or Ukippers, so he's going to stand or fall on his ability to get new voters out. Nobody's managed it before, and the odds are surely against it, but he's won the right to have a go. And tbh I don't care whether he's a decent guy or not (and he has a record as a sympathiser with some of the worst regimes and groups in the world) - he's wrong about everything, foreign and domestic, and completely unfit to hold any kind of public office, so decency doesn't really make it on to the score sheet.

FFS, the definition of free range for eggs is hardly a closely guarded secret: unlimited daytime access to outdoor runs with vegetation 4 sq metres of outdoor space per bird plus indoor requirements as for uncaged birds So this: The term Free range is virtually meaningless. Any animal in an enclosed shed that can see daylight through an opening can be called free range. Even if the place is so crowded they could never reach the outside. is about as accurate as the normal level of 'expert' posting from DF

"It's not just me who thinks this though, other perfectly rational locals on this very forum have reported back on this peculiar phenomenon. I think Foxy as an example has mentioned it before too." It's a bit of a stretch to call Foxy a 'perfectly rational local' It's also no coincidence that two prolific posters, and soi-disant local 'characters', are obsessed with the attention seeking behaviour of 'people'.

"Some people though, do actively go to certain places to be seen, and unfortunately ED seems to have said people in abundance." Are those people anything like people who post provocative nonsense on their local internet forum, with a constant undertone of "look at me, look at me"?

It can also be argued that Corbyn will never win the next election because he is utterly unfit for power, and the generally sensible British electorate can be trusted to judge that. I find that argument a bit more compelling.

"Tony Blair won elections but what did he do with them? He was as much Tory as Thatcher.." Are you Jeremy Corbyn? I claim my ?5. And a shadow cabinet job.

To suggest that much of the population of the U.K. has poor or no accommodation and/or not enough food is horseshit I.e. so far from the truth as to be offensive. It's particularly egregious horseshit coming from Lordship, whose usual MO is to treat crude macro models as a literal looking glass into the future; at least with those comments there is some factual element, albeit the confident conclusions are risible. And still no proper explanation for why the suffering masses who were the victims of Thatcher voted in another Tory govt in 92 with the largest number of votes cast for one party, ever. It was 7 years from Thatch being forced out to Blair being voted in. And Corbyn is a reaction to Blair alright, but amongst people who are in denial about the fact that TB won three elections and the Tories have since won two. Edited to add: this thread, by its title, is about perceptions of Cameron and by logical extension, his govt. I have made no comments on that; I have simply observed that the narrow perspective advanced so confidently by a few prolific posters is way out of the mainstream as well as occasionally straying into factually and historically dubious territory.

"....because for many of who lived through Thatcher, Blair and New Labour were saviours" Would the people who 'lived through Thatcher' be the same as those who voted in a Tory govt. in the 1992 general election? I have no objection to lots of people who think the same congratulating each other on how right they are - see the majority of the posts above. But don't kid yourselves that everyone thinks that way - that's how the Labour party got saddled with Corbyn. And BTW, this is the biggest load of horsesh!t posted on the forum for a very long time: "Many submissions were made for alternative applications of this money including improving & upgrading a wider selection of rail routes but these were brushed aside by Cameron/Osbourne in apparent obsession with grandiose project reasons -"keeping up with the Joneses" - bragging about how advanced the UK is becoming. No point in claiming advancement if much of your population has very poor [or no] accommodation or even not enough food." As you were.

"I don't hate Tories Dave. I just hate policies that penalise the poorest and most vulnerable. It's a different thing. But it is daft to pretend to know what 76.5% of the electorate think, and to assume how far within that hatred of the Tories goes. You have no way of knowing if it is a minority of that or not." Exhibit B

"Would that be the 76.5% of the electorate who didn't vote for them then 😁 Seems a daft thing to say Dave." Exhibit A

I think many people who hate the Tories don't realise that they are in a minority.

"We know what works and it isn't grammar schools, which bring down attainment levels generally, increase inequality and don't actually offer the brightest anything more than the average inner London comprehensive." I think the true position is more nuanced. We know that what doesn't work is the system of grammars and secondary modern schools that existed prior to the Crosland policies in the late 60s, but (as the studies cited above confirm) the real issue was how poor secondary moderns were, not that grammars didn't do their job. We also know that what doesn't work is the present set up, whereby there are pockets of grammar schools fairly randomly dotted around the country, creating the greatest possible incentive for what is known in the literature as 'neighbourhood sorting', as well as other nefarious middle class tactics. However, to dismiss any selective education on this basis is not just wrong, but counter-productive, because there are lots of people who (quite reasonably) are going to disagree with you. And also, the last bit just isn't true - grammars still outperform even the best comprehensive schools, let alone the average ones, when educating the brightest. And that's consistent with the research, that shows that most pupils benefit from mixed ability teaching (even within a streamed school set up), except the top 10% or so. My own view is that some sort of division between academic and technical/vocational education is an obviously good idea, probably better a bit earlier than 16 as currently, but not as early as 11. It's pretty common in other European countries, but, as noted previously, the two key points are that every pupil should benefit from a rigorous approach to embed basic maths/english & core academic skills to (say) 14, and then technical and vocational colleges need to be properly resourced (with the recognition that this costs more, not less, than high end academic schools).

I don't think we really disagree; however, it is worth recognising that many 'top jobs' are in fields where proper open competition is the norm, and has been for years, which runs contrary to popular perception. I don't think it's a coincidence (in light of the article cited) that journalism is not one of those fields.

This is the key sentence: "That room rarely opens up because those mediocrities are too well-screened by parents who hire private tutors, buy cultural enrichment, teach etiquette, set expectations, stand as personal examples of success, coach interview technique, navigate any bureaucratic maze put before them, set up home in nice areas, arrange internships via friends and, just to rub in their supremacy, make direct gifts of cash and assets..." Making direct gifts of cash and assets is kind of irrelevant - that's not a zero sum game of the type that he is writing about. The question then is, how can you prevent the other things quoted from tipping the balance terminally in favour of the privileged? It should be recognised that things have already changed a lot. Anybody who thinks a dim but connected rich kid can waltz into Oxbridge, is deluded - everybody they take is seriously smart - and the same can be said of large areas of business and the professions, where hiring mediocre people will just hurt the bottom line. There have also been a lot of developments recently about 'blind hiring', where at least the first stage in the recruitment process eliminates any 'social' inputs e.g. what school the candidate went to. See also a move away from blanket graduate recruitment, to more bespoke training, apprenticeships etc., with a focus on trying to widen the recruitment pool at 18, and also increasingly structured and transparent intern programs. Nepotism is getting harder and harder to push through. The 'two faces of luck' are far less widespread than they ever were, and the direction of travel is pretty much all one way. And so it should continue. The subject that nobody ever talks about in social mobility conversations is not inherited wealth, but inherited 'talent', in the broadest sense of the word. When the child of a famous sports star makes it as a pro themselves, most people don't shout about nepotism, because success and failure in sport is brutal and transparent - if you're not good enough, everyone can see it. In a genuine, no holds barred meritocracy, the same applies - and we might not like the results. The guy who coined the word 'meritocracy' understood that perfectly well.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp10000.pdf There is indeed lots of literature arguing the contrary - and many politicians, on both sides - but they are largely free of any reference to data.

So looking at the planning application, they want to split an existing maisonette into two flats, one of which will have added space from a loft conversion, and retain the existing ground floor retail space with added space at the back from extending into the side return. It all seems pretty uncontroversial - side return + loft conversion = standard practice for the neighbourhood, and no change of use application for the shop space. No indication of whether there is a tenant lined up for the shop, unless I missed something.

Lots of companies are trying to persuade insurers and customers that it's the next big thing, but it's been slow to take off. Price wise it's not likely to be attractive to anyone who has a long no claims history, drives a boring car and is way too old for 'boy racer' type antics i.e. me and pretty much everyone else I know. Motor insurers are competing so hard for our business that even with very low claim rates, they're still making an underwriting loss. I'll be looking into it more closely when the kids get nearer to driving age.

All the talk is of social mobility which is huge red herring - the evidence for the ability of a particular model of educational provision to boost mobility is thin to non-existent. A very recent study comparing Denmark and the US concluded that the lower inequality in Denmark is due to redistribution, not greater employment mobility. There's no point in being 'anti-selection'. Life is a whole series of choices, some you make yourself, and some you are on the other end of. As already noted above, selection in education can't be eliminated, it just happens. the real issue is how much it happens by design, within the system, and how much it happens outside the system, by other mechanisms e.g. house prices (the study above also noted that what they call 'neighbourhood sorting' is just as strong in Denmark as in the US). Grammar schools are probably capable of being part of an effective and fair system, but only if accompanied by high quality and well-resourced alternatives - I've seen some suggestions that opening new grammars will be linked to opening more University Technical Colleges - and with enough flexibility in the HE system so that access to university is not closed off if you don't have 'A' levels. And IMHO a cut off at 11 is too young - the focus should be on getting all pupils to an ambitious (by current standards) level of basic skills in at least maths and English by 13/14, then allowing for different routes.

Lee Jasper has accused BLM of cultural appropriation because all the City Airport protesters were white. It's like a stupidity Olympiad, and I'm enjoying being a spectator, though I'd be very cross if I had been due to fly that day.

All the flooring companies recommend that you leave a gap at the edges to allow for expansion, and that's with flooring products that have been manufactured to minimise it. We used the sawdust & glue method - ok for a while, but over time it becomes more brittle and with expansion it pulls away from one side, eventually cracks and falls out. You can get silicone products in 'wood' colours that supposedly get over the problem, but not tried them.

"i suppose it depends upon whether you want your children to have that haughty sense of entitlement and detachment from the real world that comes with such a privileged education" Proof, if proof were needed, that being a fool is not the exclusive province of ex-private school pupils. If the OP's question is real rather than hypothetical then I would advise you to go and visit some schools, private and state, and then re-examine your beliefs and ideas in light of what you see and hear. I suspect what you will find is that the differences between schools derive from many factors, and funding status is only one, and not necessarily the most important.

"I just feel as though it's yet more expense on something that should be able to travel 5 metres down the hallway or in to the room above. I will invest if the extenders to see it improves." I get the frustration, but if it's fine in the room with the router, the problem is either being caused by interference or structural barriers i.e. it's not any defect in the service you're paying for. The problem with extenders is they only pick up whatever wifi signal you've got and throw it a bit further.

This: "I haven't got round to it yet, but I'm intending getting one of those gadgets which carry broadband through the electrical circuit of your house, as they seem the most effective. They're also not that expensive." The generic name for these products is Powerline and there are various brands available. http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/test-centre/network-wifi/18-best-powerline-adapters-2016-uk-3490638/ I have Netgear ones which are the same brand as my router, but they should all work with any router.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37125819 Interesting the Corbyn has effectively accepted that he won't appeal to Tory voters, and is hanging his hat on his ability to get out previous non-voters. It's a risky strategy but it's arguable that Smith can't offer anything better. It raises an interesting question as to how far the Tories can stretch to peel off UKIP voters in both Tory and Labour constituencies and still retain some centrist/liberal appeal. If they are very canny electorally the Labour party is gonna get wiped out.

What is the chemical process for salt on slugs? Basic osmosis - water molecules moving through a membrane seeking to equalise the concentration on both sides. In plain language, the salt draws water out of the body of the slug, which then dies from dehydration.