Marmora Man

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone voting for this upper class twit has got to > be two stops short of Dagenham. > > Boris Exposed Jah - a list of Ken Livingstone selected quotes would be equally as damning. I'm against Ken and for Boris. Reasons: 1. Change - 8 years of Ken is enough, a third term would cement his own belief that he can do anyhting and ignore the electorate. 2. Boris is far brighter and far more collegiate that his caricatured persona. He would not, personally, mastermind massive change. He would appoint and use sensible, intelligent staff to work out and implement details of policy. 3. Ken has lied, lied and lied again. No more thanks.

Ant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you allowed to vote for the same candidate as > both your first and second preference? This would be a spoiled vote and neither would be counted. The explanation of this system has been poor and it would be interesting to know how many spoilt ballot papers there are as a result of general confusion.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think my point is: I don't believe there's any > such thing as a 'wasted vote'. The only wasted > vote is one which isn't used. > > The Greens have never won significant seatage > anywhere in particular over here, but (partly) > because of all the 'wasted votes' they've had over > the years, half their policies have been > incorporated by the mainstream parties. > > Repugnant though they are, I'd rather someone vote > for the BNP than not vote at all. Voting is as you point out a thoroughly good thing. However, as I understand the complicated and ridiculous 2nd preference vote scheme any 2nd vote for any candidate that is not in the run off (which practically means either Ken or Boris) just won't be physically counted - and therefore becomes just waste paper and won't be counted - so if you were, for example, to vote Green as 2nd pref it won't be scored against Green at all and the final count will only show 1st pref votes for all players and 2nd pref votes for Boris & Ken. Personally as I'm voting for one of the big two, i'll ignore the 2nd preference slot.

Two options: 1. He's just discovered he's the living proof of the Peter Principle - that people are promoted to one level beyond their competence - at which point they fail. 2. He's in a state of cognitive dissonance - what he believes the world to be and what it actually is are at odds and he can't cope. Either way he's a disaster for the country, a very poor Prime Minister - even staunch New Labourites that I know are now either apologising for him or just saying "please don't talk about it".

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Votematch interesting! Ken 1st and Sian 2nd. I > was thinking of doing them the other way round. I > agree that sadly Paddick is not convincing enough. If you vote that way around the second vote won't be counted - it will be a run off between Boris & Ken - so a second vote for anyone but them has no weight or value.

I have written to More London seeking an explanation of their arcane "rules" and also to the Evening Standard. I may have to organise a sit on - but just yet!

shoshntosh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > were you starkers on the wall?? No that would count as frightening the horses and be a legitimate reason to bang me up!

Sitting on walls See other thread

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Were you in breach of Bye-law 56? Definitely not - tho' a cool glass of beer would have really enhanced the pleasure of sitting there in the sun. Thanks to all poster for general support. It encourages me that we should all ignore / protest against petty officaldom, if we don't then the overbearing bureaucracy will grow ever more.

Background: This afternoon I was sitting on the wall by the River Thames opposite the London Assembly building in the sunshine. Sitting on Thames side walls or railings in the sunshine and watching the world go by is something I have enjoyed doing for most of my life in London. I was told by a security attendant to get off the wall ?for my own safety?. When I queried this, pointing out that at my age I was perfectly capable of making decisions about my own safety, the attendant changed his line telling me it was against the rules. I pointed out that rules and regulations that are not publicised are of little value in guiding the public?s actions and queried what the rules were for but the security attendant was unable to explain. He then reported my failure to ?obey the rules? by radio and went away, returning some 5 minutes later to again tell me to get off the wall. I again queried the rationale and again he was unable to explain. I continued to sit on the wall in the sunshine. The attendant berated me for my lack of obedience but decided to then walk away and ask others to stop sitting on walls. As an instinctive libertarian I object to being told what to do for no good reason. The wall runs alongside the Thames and forms part of the Queens Walk from Lambeth Bridge to Tower Bridge ? something created in 1994 for the public?s use and enjoyment. The land however, is owned by a private company called "More London". I am not aware of any regulation that makes it illegal to sit on a riverside wall. I can only conclude that either "More London" staff are making up arbitrary rules for no real purpose or that "More London" is so risk averse that it wishes to prevent enjoyment of normal Thames side pleasures in case someone does fall into the river and is sued. If it?s the first reason the staff needs better training, if it?s the latter the management need to take a more robust and balanced view of life and risk. Question- Was I unreasonable? I'm tempted to organise a mass "wall sit on" just for the fun of it. Edited to change "sit in" to "sit on"

Just discovered this - Horror. I was shopping in the Lane for the weekend and, inter alia, passing time of day briefly with the good Sean MacGabhann while in William Rose (perhaps I should have mentioned my intention to canvas for Boris J this weekend?). On completion of shopping my plan had been to relax with newspaper, glass on wine at G&B, buying some olives and good Fino to take home for the weekend. It was locked shut. Thought I might be the first to notify EDF but - as ever, well behind the curve. This is worth marching for! Save our G&B. Quite apart from anything else there's several thousands of pounds worth of good wine locked up in there.

annaj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can we have some more of our NHS employees input > on this one? > AnnaJ - I'm far from knocking Doctors or any clinician. My own experience of joining thew NHS as a manager in 1993, after an earlier managerial career in a very different environment was just how pointless most of NHS management was. In my previous life the aim of the managerial level had been to make the life of those actually delivering, and receiving, the service easier. This did not seem to be the ethos of the average NHS manager. Diversity awareness programmes, gender equality programmes, endless committee meetings, delegation upwards, lack of initiative, responsibility or decision making were endemic. I left, after 4 years, to manage private hospitals and found I could help make the consultants, nurses and patients life easier by taking sensible, pragmatic decisons within my own, little (100 beds) hospital and subsequently 17 such hospitals. I found most docs regarded their time in the private sector as a respite from the drudge of NHS bureaucracy - tho' the fact they were supplementing their income was no doubt an added attraction! I believe that making NHS hospitals genuinely independent of politicians, the DoH and its centralist bureaucracy could create a similar ethos, save money and improve service levels. At a recent think tank breakfast the BMI, presidents of several colleges and other respected NHS managers / thinkers were of a similar accord. This does not mean they have to "go private" - the free at point of service can remain, thus meeting Sean's desire for a middle way, but reducing management levels (sounds an easy target but it would be bloody difficult) should be the aim and can only be achieved by taking the provision / management of (as opposed to the funding) the NHS away from politicians.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The NHS is largely a @#$%& joke nowadays - based > on its employers' needs (especially GPs and 'the > odious management consultants involved) rather > than any sort of patient service. And it's not > like its 'free'to taxpayers, it costs us a > fortune. It's a sacred cow - and the politicians > are afraid to tackle its huge problems.I resent > having to go private (sadly no longer on principle > but as a taxpayer) but if my family needs it I'm > paying Agree, agree agree. The NHS could be run for 70% (quite probably less) of current cost at 100% improved effectiveness if it were managed properly. For info - last time I tried to use NHS GP for an urgent problem with eldest son(on a Sunday evening)I ended up going private - The private GP cost about ?70.00 and was with me, at home, within 40 minutes. A GP friend once proposed charging 100 families ?1,000 a year for a 24/7 GP service with guaranteed home visits and support. It's a model I could see working well if the cost to an individual could be tax deductible.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've not been able to find a reference to our MP > criticising the increase in taxation for the less > well-off members of our East Dulwich community. Tessa criticising the Government - shame on you, what an idea. It could affect her steady rise without a trace. The last time I met her she tried to persuade me Harriet Harperson was a good politician - such judgement.

I'm with Keef on this - Britain, as an island, is one of the most populous countries in the world. It is also very attractive to incomers as a vibrant economy (this government's latest shenanigans notwithstanding). These two facts cannot be sustained for ever. AS I said in my earlier post - writ large the same problem applies to the world - world resources cannot sustain an ever growing population. Contraception, education and growing prosperity all tend to slow population growth in the developing world. None of these will be sufficient in UK if we continue to accept even 100,000 immigrants a year, let alone the quoted 500,000. I don't have any magic wand solution to propose but would agree the issue must be discussed.

Can't believe I've missed this thread before. Books to re-read: Anything by Patrick O'Brian - the Master & Commander series. Anything by Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, Dickens + War & Peace. I recently reread I Claudius and Claudius the God - both were worth the effort. Noted earlier that someone was persevering with the Magus - which I loved in the 70's and re-read about three years ago with enjoyment. Will read the back of a cereal packet if pressed - must have a book "on the go" at all times. Have been reading quite a bit of trash recently - but can recommend: The One from the Other - Phillip Kerr. A sort of Chadler"esque" detective story set in post war Berlin - part of a short series. Recommended. The Yiddish Policemen's Union - Michael Chabon. Definitely weird but very enjoyable. Set in a parallel state where the Holocaust didn't happen because the US allowed Jewish emigrants from Europe to settle in Alaska. Watching the Door - Kevin Myers - a MUST read book for anyone that was in N. Ireland or followed what was going on in N. Ireland in the 70's. Probably the best book I've read this year. DEfinitely recommended

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question > 1. should immigration continue at the present > level, and if so why? Answer: I have no problem > with current levels. I would even extend it to > allow non EU citizens and non-Asylum seekers to > stay longer (eg Australian/Safrican and US > citizens) > 2. should it be reduced and to how much? Nope. And > no-one will ever be able to come to a sensible > answer on "how much" is a good amount > 3. should it be stopped and if so why? Nope - > answer already given in previous posts I didn't want to mix it on this thread but Sean's response to SteveT's questions caught my eye - as always my libertarian / liberal instincts tend to agree with Sean's left leaning / liberal answer but ... what if the questions were rephrased slightly as: 1. Can UK / the world cope with continued population growth? 2. Should population growth be contained in some fashion? 3. Should population growth be reduced? Then it becomes a question of balancing resources (space, homes, services, minerals, energy supplies, water) against demand. My answers would be: 1. Can UK / the world cope with continued population growth? Not for ever - there will come a point where it becomes too crowded. 2. Should population growth be contained in some fashion? Yes - because of a. above but it will be difficult 3. Should population growth be reduced? Target rate of growth should be reduced to sustainable level(s) (ie v. low growth / no growth) tho' how to do this is a major difficulty. I have no objection to anyone of any nation coming to live here, in my street , my village or my community. I do have concerns that as an economy UK cannot sustain the population growth it is experiencing. If the outflow / inflow was more balanced such that the UK experienced a relatively steady state of population wouldn't UK, and all its varied population, be better off? Ditto for the world as a whole - excessive population growth hurts everyone but it hurts the poorest mostest.

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what about Paddick? I'm starting to veer in his > direction. Remember a conservative (small c) is simply a liberal that has met reality.

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a sensible vote would be one that ensures > our next mayor doesn't describe black people as > picanninies. So you could vote for the man that calls a Jewish journalist no better than a concentration camp guard.

Whey hey - Economic: 4.5 & Social: - 3.03 Socially liberal but still a libertarian right wing bastard

I'm sure Franklins can handle the bacon, sausage & black pud end of the breakfast - but the make or break for me is the scrambled eggs - are they creamy, still runny and .. just .. cooked, ideally served on a fried slice (cooked in bacon fat). I hate scrambled eggs that are like a slice of sponge cake.

Possible / probable offender - male - 30's, black hair with black Labrador. Spotted (not by me) allowing dog to foul on corner of Therapia & Scutari. Anyone have anymore clues? Once identified I can ask him to "do the right thing".

I've always done so - but sometimes you need to be brave and take up a lot of space - don't let yourself be squeezed into the kerb.

I was wondering how the format might work with .. ahem .. more mature managers. Given the encroaching recession there may be a few redundees out there by next year and seeing what they make of the tasks would make an interesting contrast with the laddish / Big Brother style culture of the current series. On the whole I preferred Series 1 & 2 when there was less posturing.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can anyone recommend a theatre where the seats > were designed with normal people's legs in mind > and not amputees. At 6'2" I find most theatre > going experiences ruined after 30mins when I can > no longer feel my feet due to lack of circulation > and have my knees near my ears. The Barbican is > the only place I found even close to comfy. The National is OK too.