Marmora Man

Guy's Tower is about to be upgraded - a new cladding will be added and the hospital also has plans to build a new 14 story Oncology Centre designed by Lord Rogers.

I like it too - it's the extra light I think.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think renting is a mug's game at all. You > don't have to worry about maintenence, you have > the freedom to move when you want, your money > isn't tied up in an asset. It has advantages. It has advantages - agreed. However, it relies on you having sufficient income to cover the rent for all of your life. A 25 year mortgage brings you an asset that will have only the maintenance costs to cover once the mortgage is paid off. This means that, for example, my mother can manage quite well on her widow's pension Nd stay inthe home she has lived in for most of her life. For her this advantage outweighs the period in her life when paying the mortgage was difficult.

In many ways I would support this proposal - except I would not want "re-nationalisation" as I believe there are many benefits in competition and I abhor the idea of a centralised government (of any colour) running major businesses. Railways are an essential part of the national infrastructure - in the same way that roads, airports, canals and seaports are. Of these, only roads are truly nationalised - and even for these some have been funded by private sector under a PFI model that, on the whole, works well and fairly. By all means re-jig the current model which is daft. Return to the geographical areas with the company responsible for track, transport, staff, railway stations and maintenance. Subsidy will be needed - and can be based upon some capita type of levy / calculation. To those that would argue that this would not be competitive - I would say, yes the different areas do not compete directly but, if all are eligible for subsidy, then their operating costs per mile, customer satisfaction, punctuality, journey time and a host of other metrics can be measured and compared - with the more successful being rewarded with lower cost access to capital or a different level of subsidy. Possibly complicated but better on the whole than the public sector beast that was, once, British Rail. PS: Slight flaw in your point D-C in that you cannot complain about double digit fare increases and also complain that the train operators choose to carry out maintenance at a time that incurs the lowest cost.

I think you're loading this insignificant discussion with too great a weight. While I recognise this is a silly story with no real content and that there is no intention to impose change to the traditional / historic use of language, it still seems unnecessary for anyone to even suggest a change - language will evolve naturally over time if it needs to. As I see it AD / BC lost any religious significance many centuries ago, and became instead simply convenient shorthand for differentiating before and after what you, correctly, describe as an arbitrary point in time. I don't see AD / BC as an imposition of religious intent or observance. However, if you do then surely any alternative useage carries similar (if opposite & secular) connotation? As an atheist I can appreciate the language of the King James bible, or the words and music of hymns - doesn't mean I subscribe to, or feel I have imposed upon me, any religious pressure. I don't feel any need to reject these, or seek alternative words and phrases, because I prefer a secular society

Also heard on Marmora Road - but no idea what is was.

The majority of the world's population subscribe to one of the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity or Islam. This year is: 1432 AH if you are a Moslem 2011 AD if your are a Christian 5771 AM if you are Jewish If, like me, you ae an atheist, then you could expect to use a dating system that reflects the tradition of e country in which you live. In UK that would be a western Christian tradition - thus we use the terms AD / BC and they should carry no pejorative connotation nor any element of offence to other faiths. I doubt many Muslims or Jews are worrying about it - altho' the Jewish faith will, when referring to the Gregorian / Western Christian calendar avoid the use of the term Lord or Christ as the figure referred to is n ot considered a Lord / Christ in their religion. This whole matter seems petty and of very minor significance - except in that it represents a shift away from Britain's western Christian tradition, and I deplore a shift from tradition unless there is a very good reason. I can see no very good reason for this proposed change in terminology. Edited for spelling and clarity

It's Gutenburg and other out of copyright, or paid for books. For example, was intrigued to learn that "Cool Hand Luke" a favourite film is based on a novel. Amazon doesn't publish the novel but other e-book providers do. How can I buy and transfer to my Kindle??

I like my Kindle - but don't like being restricted to the Amazon website / bookshop. I haven't been able to sort out how to download books from elsewhere - either directly to the KIndle or via my PC and then transferred to Kindle. Can anyone point me at a simple "how to do it" guide? Cheers

KT1997 - state provision sounds fine in principle. All effort and focus on the output, none on competition and profit. In practice state providers fall foul of the lifecycle of all monopolies - and tend to be complacent, ignoring the needs and desires of those they are designed to serve and becoming instead self regarding entities the principle purpose of which is perpetuate the existing, cosy, culture and funding arrangements for the benefit of the organisation rather than the end users, (patients, parents or children in this case). Competition destroys monopolies and makes all players sharpen up their act. As an example - outside of health or education look at Merseyside Fire Brigade where an, almost, unique revolution took place within a public sector organisation. Look also at the response from the Fire Brigade Union and other Fire Brigades. What is the outcome you seek from a fire brigade? Putting out fires? The head of Merseyside looked at it in a different way - he suggested the need was to reduce the incidence of fires. This meant focussing on fire prevention, which led to a 35% decrease in the number of fires the brigade had to attend, which in turn meant it was possible to reduce staffing levels, the number of appliances and costs. The head of Merseyside was fought almost every step of the way by the union seeking to "protect the jobs"; other Fire Brigades have been very reluctant to follow his example because, firstly, the tendency toward inertia and secondly a reluctance to confront the unions. Now look at education and health. Both could do with the sort of revolution the head of Merseyside Fire Brigade initiated. Yet the Local Education Authorities and teacher's unions, along with the BMA, RCN, NMC, GMC, Unison and a bunch of other acronyms all oppose change which will / could / should improve care for patients and teaching for children, because change will affect their members status, pay and conditions. Hospitals and schools do not exist for the staff within them - they exist to provide care and to teach. I do not wish good healthcare staff to be poorly paid, nor do I wish teachers to be poorly paid. However, I do want the cosy, public sector, oligarchies to be challenged to improve the quality of services we all receive.

Good question KT1997 - however, the fact that parents are taking action to open and manage / lead schools in areas where the local quality is perceived as poor answers, sort of, your question. Some obviously do wish to get involved and runs schools. As to whether they have the skills - time will tell.

But it your wish to "impose" a different sort of rigid & hostile ideas about what is right and wrong. However, you're not obliged to send your children to a religious school - why not allow those with such religious tastes choose their sort of school? Unless someone can come up with a totally objective and unbiased schools curriculum there will always be those that wish to dissent - let them.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wasn't aware I was on a side on this one, let > alone swapping. > > If i'm going to be called out on it, back to the > original question I'd go perception. The figures > raised aren't insubstantial in an absolute way, > but in terms of the wider policy they are marginal > meaning such palarver is because of the political > not economic impact. And that's the problem. Decisions made on subjective political grounds rather than objective, rational, grounds. This could close the thread down.

Hugenot, There's also the strange anthropomorphism which leads people to look after wild animals that are due to die - which is a natural state. See this rather nauseating thread as an example. "Saving two baby pigeons because Momma & Poppa pigeon have gone missing" Uuuurgghh!!

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely the reason private firms appear better able to provide healthcare in your eyes is their ability to not have to deal with the volumes the nhs does, as well as being selective. Actually, I'm not saying that private healthcare is better, in absolute outcomes it's much the same, altho because of the elective nature it's usually better planned and calmer. I recognise the argument that it doesn't have to deal with the volumes. What I propose is for the NHS, in all its variety, be run by the private sector and funded through taxation and / or a social insurance process. That way it remains free at point of delivery but can be made far more efficient. My wife still works in the NHS, I have worked in it - now work alongside it. I know where the savings can be made - I know where the inefficiencies are. > But it should also said there are areas where we agree - "rationing certain types of healthcare by making people pay a portion of the cost (IVF, tattoo removal, comemtic surgery, bariatric surgery for example)". I might not agree with all of the examples but taking some of the more elective procedures off the list is both a saving and doesn't require costly restructuring. Agree - this is one of the areas of immediate saving open to the NHS. Others might be to move off the national payscale allowing hospitals to pay more for scarce staff and less in areas where the cost of living is lower. Greater utilisation would be a good idea as well - in the private sector theatres are available for 12 hours a day (minimum) for 5.5 / 6 days a week and, on occasions, 7 days a week. In the NHS 8 hours a day for 4.5 days a week (apart from emergency) is good going. Ditto imaging, pathology, pharmacy, stores support, admin support and so on. Most major hospitals and certainly almost all "bog standard" DGHs effectively close for business on Friday afternoon and don't resume, apart from A&E, until 10.00 Monday. The NHS could also reduce the ridiculous amounts of paper that flow backwards and forwards to manage even the simplest matter. Let professionals manage but don't ask them to prove and record every single decision they make. Nurses should spend more time with the patient than in writing up the otes - these days the ratio has been reversed. The endless committee meetings, the reluctance to make a decision, the tendency to "delegate upwards" and the general reluctance to make a decision are all paralysing and costly.

And your evidence for this is?? Every politician since Bevan has committed to the NHS "free at the point of delivery". That is not going to change. To suggest this government is pursuing some ideological conspiracy to get rid of the NHS is pure fantasy. I personally believe healthcare could be delivered far more effectively and efficiently by the private sector; that is based on almost 20 years of experience. However, I do not suggest, nor have I ever heard anyone else suggest, that the "free at point of delivery" or the funding basis of UK healthcare be changed. There are different models that could be discussed - replacing some of the taxes paid with a form of mandatory social insurance as in parts of Europe, rationing certain types of healthcare by making people pay a portion of the cost (IVF, tattoo removal, comemtic surgery, bariatric surgery for example) but no one has ever, to my knowledge, proposed the dismantling of the NHS.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hang on. That's ?12.6 billion over five years. > In other words, back to the ?2.7 per year I posted > earlier, except multiplied by five to make it > sound much bigger than it is. And the same ?2.7m > a year that seems to be very, very over > estimated. > > Look I am willing to say that if the 50% rate > brings in a significant amount of money (i.e. more > than ?2bn a year), then fine, it works so keep it, > Are all the pro-50% people here brave enough to > say that if it doesn't (and that means less than > ?1bn a year) then we should scrap it? We'll leave > the middle as a place to argue over later. > > Timster? SJ? DC? Loz's challenge seconded.

That's a meaningless statement (and I'd like to on record that I didn't use the word meaningless in any of my posts). Every case of terminal cancer (or other disease) is an individual tragedy - but nationally, and economically it is not a sensible use of scarce NHS funds to spend large amounts to extend life by a very few months, particularly if those few months are going to provide a very poor quality of life. Taking this to an anecdotal level - I know of a case where a young woman spent the last five years of her, already compromised life, mostly in a coma, in pain and in a hospital bed undergoing countless, expensive and painful life prolonging procedures because of pressure from her parents. These parents repeatedly refused to allow staff to implement a DNR (do not resuscitate) plan so, at the inevitable end this woman died in a souless, high tech critical care unit surrounded by machinery, technicians and blank, sterile walls, rather than peaceably in a hospice surrounded by family and friends.

SJ - if you feel sick that I consider ?12.6bn a small figure you need to become more aware. That is almost exactly the sum that the last administration wasted on the disastrous NHS IT system as revealed today. what makes me sick is that government spending is projected to increase to over ?500bn a year, with a substantial portion of that spend just servicing the debts run up by previous administrations. Working within healthcare I'm very aware of the ?20bn target for savings - I'm also aware that it can be achieved if only the NHS (and politicians) would do the right thing. Consolidating hospitals onto fewer and better equipped sites would be a start - but the 5 year furore over the closing of Chase Farm A&E and shifting A&E services by 5 miles probably means that it will take time to happen. Within 10 miles of here we have three teaching hospitals - Guy's, St Thomas' and King's. All good hospitals but at least one could close without any impact on the health and wellbeing of the local community and, by doing so, save well over 5% of the savings target alone.

Timster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This from the Guardian: The Treasury predicts that over the next five years the 50p tax rate will raise ?5.3bn more than it would have raised if the top rate of tax had remained at 45p, and ?12.6bn more than it would have raised if the top rate had stayed at 40p. A specious quote Timster - it's a big number but the Guardian failed to point out that ?12.6bn represents less an 0.5% of projected government spending over the next five years. That's just a rounding error for Treasury. The 50p tax rate is therefore absolutely marginal in its impact on the deficit and governemnt spending. Hell, that sort of sum gets frittered away on useless IT projects most years without being noticed.

Great a mathematically challenged poster making econimic arguments. It takes less than a few seconds of mental arithmetic to arrive at a figure that shows 400,000 divided by 29 million is less than 1.5% (actually, as I then checked it with a calculator, 1.379%). You were out in your estimate by over 100% Timster. There is a genuine question as to whether it does raise any money - this is being checked at present. If you go right back to my original post I did posit that if it raised a significant sum the rate should stay for a while. What I am concerned about is the tendency of so many to make idle and economically illiterate comments along the lines of "let's make the rich pay more - they can afford it", without bothering to think through the impact of forever adding more disincentives at the top end of business. I woudln't want to a return to "1 for you, 19 for me" that George Harrison quoted in his Taxman song of the 60s. So you agree that taxing the one part of the economy that is relatively booming would be disincentivising? If capital investment moves eleswhere, investment falls, if investment falls, growth falls, if growth falls - we all suffer.

And the 400,000 above probably breaks down again on a similar basis with 10% (ie 40,000 people) earning more than ?200,000 and the majority (360,000) earning between ?100K & ?200K. can you research that also MP? I don't know where to look. While there's no doubt anyone with an income in that bracket is comfortable I would contend, with Loz, that they are not rich. Rich don't worry about income - they have wealth. They buy houses, yachts and cars without mortgages or loans. They fly 1st Class as a matter of course without considering the cost (that's if they don't actually own a private jet). Rich have several properties, rich have special advisors to help them invest and minimise their tax liability. The high salaried, comfortably off can, often, be just a few months away from being very poor - as their apparent wealth and assets depend upon regular, high, salary payments. The recession has demonstrated how quickly a high flying businesman on ?150K a year can, once redundant and unable to service the mortgage, school fees, car leasing costs and the like that give the appearance of wealth, have to give up these luxuries, cash in whatever assets they posses and downsize dramatically or even be made bankrupt.

Don't knock it - tourism is a huge earner for UK. In the run up to the Olympics, of which this is part of the marketing campaign, it makes sense to "accentuatethe positives" and encourage people to look well upon UK. If successful it can only benefit us all. As for the PM having more important things to do - sure that argument can be made, but his imprimature does help generate publicity, which this is all about.

Nashoi, I do understand your point - but don't quite agree. Someone on the average salary has 77.1% of their salary left after direct tax deductions by gov't. Someone on ?200,000 has 57.1% of salary left after direct tax deductions. That's progressive. To further assist those on lower incomes much indirect taxation is directed at higher spending items. Housing does not incur VAT, food does not incur VAT, utilities do - but heating oil is at a lower rate. 2nd hand cars do not attract VAT, children's clothing does not attract VAT. I cannot see where the marginal tax rate of 73% you quote comes in - unless it is the impact of withdrawing of state benefits, which is a very different question. I do not agree with the complex arrangements for state benefits - taking the lower paid out of the tax take entirely should be the aim. Not taking tax with one hand, processing it at some administrative costs, and returning some of it in the form of benefits was an Orwelllian Big Brother / G Brown ploy that makes "slaves" of those trapped in this tyranny. However, I'm pleased to see a gradual acceptance that those of ?150K pa are not filthy rich and agree also that the truly wealthy should not be able / allowed to avoid tax.

Mick Mac - sure things have changed - but death remains inevitable and while fewer people are being buried demand remains high and I see no reason why land purchased for that purpose shouldn't be used for that purpose. Personally I'm going to be burnt with the waste disposed of at sea.