DaveR

Believe it or not the Bistro Nord, directly opposite the Gare du Nord, is excellent. It's owned by a guy from Alsace (who also owns Bistro Flo, which is near Republique somewhere). I have eaten there loads of times, but that's partly because I love choucroute and theirs is top. I would also recommend Chez Paul on Rue de Charonne, near Bastille, and this street and Rue de Lappe nearby have lost of nice restaurants and bars. Also Rue Oberkampf Finally, traditional in the same way that curry is traditionally English, North African food at L'homme Bleu, Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud - try and get a table in the cellar.

"Do I want my children's schooling to be run by the lowest bidder in a dutch-auction? Do I want my hospital to be staffed by those on the lowest wages to reduce overheads?" Why do you assume that you can't choose what you regard as the best overall value - after all, you do it every day when you buy all sorts of other products (including very complicated and important ones - pensions, mortgages etc.), and others already make similar choices in relation to health and education.

MM, I reckon it's just you and me on this one. Your basic point is echoed by Jamie Whyte in the Times today - here The key point is, as you say, that education and healthcare were not invented by government - these are things that people want and will organise for themselves in any event. Many other bodies (quangos in particular) do things that nobody wants or needs, and do them inefficiently because the first rule for any individual or organisation that is not dependent on customers is to ensure it's own survival i.e. never attempt to fix the problem you are supposed to be fixing, because then you are out of a job. It comes back to the 4 types of expenditure: (i) I spend my money on myself - say buying a car. I will make sure I get the best quality car for the lowest price. (ii) I spend someone else's money on myself - say buying a company car. Who cares about price - ?500 extra for metallic paint - no problem! (iii) I spend my money on someone else - say buying my mother-in-law a car. Who cares about quality - ?100 for a 10 year old Lada Riva - perfect. (iv) I spend someone else's money on someone else - I'm a civil servant buying cars. Quality, price, whatever - I'm never going to see the car, and next year I'll be buying tanks or pencils or heart monitors. All public spending is, by definition, type (iv).

"Korean Mung bean pancake anyone?" Yup, love them. Had pancakes, along with bulgogi, bibimbap and loads of kimchi as a post-theatre meal recently here - good food and v cheap. Not at all vegetarian, obviously.

"When you do cook, cook a bit too much and put it in a bowl in the fridge. It'll be good for a few days. At 3.30am take out bowl and put in microwave until hot and then put on top of buttered toast. Highly recommended for curry, chili, spaghetti sauce etc. with the same kind of oily/hot/tasty satisfaction that comes with any good takeaway." and of course the option of melted cheese on top or even a fried egg

When you do cook, cook a bit too much and put it in a bowl in the fridge. It'll be good for a few days. At 3.30am take out bowl and put in microwave until hot and then put on top of buttered toast. Highly recommended for curry, chili, spaghetti sauce etc. with the same kind of oily/hot/tasty satisfaction that comes with any good takeaway.

I like it too - it's such a good location that I'm willing to put up with it being a bit slow. Not pricey by park cafe standards. I too have kids but avoid it when it is full of kids, unless the weather is good and you can sit outside.

"Great thread Matt, it's been a while. I have noticed that every time we get one of these, the same parents will rush in to attack! Blue one made a very reasonable point way back on page 1, well done you!" I think what happens is many people observe (i) that generalising about the behaviour of mothers and their kids is no more valid than generalising about any other group (ii) that their own experiences of the behaviour of the enormous number of young kids to be found in and around ED tends to the positive rather than the negative (iii) that the use of phrases like Yummy Mummy introduces issues of class that obscure and detract from the rational argument and (iv) that if the point you want to make is that there should be sensible limits on kids and their behaviour, particularly in 'adult' spaces e.g. pubs after about 6pm, don't worry, everybody agrees. I've never seen any post on any of the numerous threads where this has been debated ad nauseam go further than the above in their support of the 'kid lobby', if there is one.

Honestly, don't parents understand that if they go shopping on LL on a Saturday they're just going to get in the way of more important 'cool' people who are very busy mooching around in sunglasses and trousers of uncertain length

Other Reagan quotes: "They say hard work never killed anyone but I figure, why take the chance?" On being asked whether a aprticular crisis had been occupying a lot of his time- "Yeah, I've really been burning the afternoon oil"

"P.S - If you're an Ipswich supporter we're never going to get along. My second team is Norwich" I can only assume your fondness for "the Budgies" is born of feelings of (misplaced) pity, or evidence of the legendary Scouse sense of humour.

I think we are both arguing the same point here, I'm just trying to point out that we're not even close to the realms of Chelsea and United in terms of spending. I think earlier on you suggested the difference was 'history', not just differing amounts of cash - if you agree its the latter, no problem. NB Richard Wright Fabian Wilnis Jamie Clapham John McGreal Mark Venus Hermann Hreidarsson Matt Holland Jermaine Wright Jim Magilton Marcus Stewart James Scowcroft Ipswich Town team who beat Liverpool at Anfield, Premier League 2000-1

Reina, Arbeloa, Carragher, Skrtel, Insua, Kuyt (Lucas 80), Gerrard, Mascherano, Babel (Benayoun 59), Torres, Voronin (Finnan 71). How many 'nurtured' young players? I have no grudge against Liverpool, but it's a simple fact that if you want to compete in the premiership you have to spend big, and peel off young player who other clubs have developed, and in that sense Liverpool are no different in principle to the others - its just a question of degree. Chelsea were/are successful because they appointed a gifted manager who bought good players and made them into a good team (Blackburn did the same). Rafa is a good coach and will be asking for ?40 - 50 million to spend over the summer because that's what it takes. NB - lasting success - 18 years since Liverpool last won the title

Sorry Annasfield, I don't get it - obviously you want to feel superior to Chelsea fans etc., but saying Liverpool are successful now because of their history is wishful thinking - it's because you've decided to spend what it takes. The history gives you an advantage if a player is choosing between you and say Villa (who have a fine history, but not so well known beyond Birmingham), but it's hardly a decisive factor. Liverpool are attempting to buy success because it's the only way of winning the premiership - nothing to be ashamed of, but you might as well accept it.

Doesn't matter how much Torres loved Liverpool as a kid, the price tag was still ?20 million, and if you hadn't paid it, he'd probably be playing for Chelsea or Man U right now

Similar observations on MOTD last night about the money you have to spend to break into the top four. The problem for Everton, Spurs, Villa etc. is that big name players want to know who else you've got, or are getting, to make sure you're serious about getting that Champions League spot. If Spurs could hold on to Berbatov it would make it easier to sign players of a similar class - if he goes, they will struggle. The alternative is a big name manager (in international terms) with a record for taking clubs (and players) to the highest level - Mourinho, anyone?

I did say that's another issue, and to make it clear what I mean is that it cannot be addressed solely, or even primarily via the education system. There are plenty of kids from homes with not a lot of cash whose parents are nevertheless just as keen that they get a good education as your typical stereotype pushy middle class lot. Those parents are less likely to have (i) the financial ability to move to find a good school or (ii) the time or belief that they can challenge the educational bureaucracy. Make individual schools more accountable to the communities they serve, and make a positive effort to allow all parents a voice, and the majority will prevail. And as we all agree, the majority of parents want a decent education for their kids.....

James, I believe the direct opposite. Abandon the belief that "proper and total comprehensivization" is either desirable or achievable, and give as much power to parents as possible. When kids are left to rot it's either because their parents couldn't care less (and that's another issue) or because they are powerless.

"Presumably then there would be no state education at all but only private providers competing with one another. So where will your kids go then?" Most historians date the advent of state education in the UK to the Balfour Education Act in 1902. Before that schools were provided by a combination of voluntary societies, churches, elected local school boards etc. There is very little evidence that the immediate effect of the Act was to make provision better or more widespread (well over 90% of primary age children were already in school) - it just changed control from local and varied to national and uniform. I think local and varied is good.

"In a fair & just society" That's what it comes down to - do you want fairness and justice (determined by the particular view of what is just and fair of whoever holds the political power at the relevant time) or do you want freedom, where individuals and familes can pursue what they want, within a legal framework for balancing competing rights. I favour the latter (you may be surprised to know) Incidentally, I was educated in the state system and hope that my kids will be too - there's no substitute for having most of your friends living round the corner.

"parents don't want "choice." Some of us do. How do you "scrap" private schools - make it a crime to operate one, or to send your kid to one? Create a black market for extra maths tuition? It's perfectly legitimate for a government to make fairness (rather than quality) the main criterion in the provision of state education, but what right does any government have to impose on individual parents the obligation to send a child to a single school operated on particular ideological lines? This is not just a question about money but about freedom - there is currently no legal obligation to send a child to school at all.

The only relevant article I could find was this one where he says: "The chief reason for the escalating demand is the mushrooming middle class in developing countries, especially China and India, now growing by 50 million people a year. As people get better off they demand more meat, which mops up grain supplies, since it takes some 8lbs (3.5kg) of cereals to produce 1lb (450g) of beef. Now cars, as well as cows, are out-competing hungry people, through the increasing use of corn for biofuels. By next year, predicts Lester Brown, president of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute, almost a third of the US corn crop ? which has traditionally helped to feed 100 nations ? will go for fuel. Mr Brown points out that, in an increasingly fuel-scarce world, the price of corn will henceforth be tied to the mounting price of oil." It may well be true that multinationals have made bigger profits because of rising prices, but that's not the same as causing price rises. And the fact that speculators are 'blamed' is hardly surprising, but that don't make it true either.

I'm amazed that people have such a one-eyed view of the last 30 odd years of British history, but there you go. The Tories tried to persuade the British public in '97 that a vote for T Blair would be sending the country back to the 70s, winter of discontent etc. They were wrong, and were rightly disbelieved by voters. I predict a similar result for Labour predicting that a vote for Cameron will bring back Thatcher. PS - I wouldn't want to live in Bromley, but they have a vote - its called democracy

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tax less and give people the choice to spend money > on socially beneficial things - you may be > surprised at the outcome! This certainly worked-out well under the last Tory government. I'm thinking in particular of the health service, the transport network, education etc etc. Looking forward to the next one.. won't be long now." It happens already in education, because schools know that they are better off trying to raise funds from parents than get it from the LEA. Parents are willing but object because they are paying twice i.e. directly and indirectly via taxation. The classic Labour response to this is more public funding i.e. higher taxes, but it's a lot less efficient. Blair liked to talk about choice for consumers of public services but was unwilling to address the big issue i.e. the way we provide education and healthcare in particular in the UK is inherently inefficient.

One of the major issues is whether there is an alternative to direct government subsidy for the arts - in the US there is massive private funding, from both corporations and individuals, encouraged both by tax policies and a prevalent culture of philanthropy. Here, the left (even the New Labour centre-left) are instinctively disapproving of profitable companies and wealthy individuals - see, on another thread here, a description of international corporations as "vicious thugs". There seems to be a belief that private funding lets government 'off the hook'. Tax less and give people the choice to spend money on socially beneficial things - you may be surprised at the outcome!