Marmora Man

Sean, I did acknowledge as much in my post

curlykaren Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- yes MrBen, I too find it stirring. Political apathy is so widespread in this country that I welcome almost any indication to the contrary. Beginning of the end for the coalition? One can only hope... I don't know if it's the beginning of the end for the Coalition - but I seriously doubt it. Rioting against is easy, but childish. I do not see it as stirring - although sensible protests, done well, can stir a proper debate and thus gain support for new ideas. The debate today will be about the violence and not the issue. Providing alternative solutions, campaigning for them and gaining majority support is the hard but proper way to demonstrate opposition in this country (after all we're not French). Not that current parliamentary opposition has any rational alternative to offer, particularly on student fees where the rise in tuition fees is the inevitable outcome of decisions they took whilst in Government - first to introduce tuition fees, secondly to expand vastly access to university without a commensurate increase in higher education funding and thirdly by growing the cost of public sector to unaffordable proportions. Edited to change "protesting" for "rioting" as making better sense of my point

The Submarine Service held its Memorial MArch on Sunday 7th Nov past its own Memorial on the Victoria Embankment. The men marching formed a mixed group - Officers, senior rates and ratings all together - which is not the recommended Naval ceremonial etiquette but is intended to demonstrate the "all in it together" nature of submarine life. 38% of all submarines sent to sea were lost with all hands - the U Boat losses were much higher at closer to 80%.

Utterly wrong - tho' I'm not too sure about the blinging up of the basic poppy design either.

we had this dilemma too. Solved it by distant online shopping - tho 7 years ago this was still new and problematical. My wife used to drive 100 miles to do the monthly shop, neighbours did rally round. Church and other social groups were helpful. The Dulwich Circle and Dulwich Helpline type of organisations are excellent examples. In then end the reason we live in ED is that is was the only place in London where we could buy a house large enough for parents-in-law to live with us - albeit it in a granny flat with separate front door. As for the driving no real clues - my mother in law eventually gave up due to macular disease, it was a great loss to her but with the other support in place she, reluctantly agreed.

Taken drugs Swum with dolphins Drunk an alcopop Been unfaithful

GG, I too saw Anthony Sher and Ian McKellen in Ruchard III. I preferred the Sher version - I will never forget the image of him, twisted body, elbow Fricker and a long black raggedty cloak scuttling across the stage. I should have his book "Year of the King" somewhere it was a brilliant insight into the actor's thinking. btw - the first I saw Judi Dench was in '68 when she played Sally Bowles in Caberet - forget Liza Minnelli, that was the definitive Bowles.

Animals should not be abused but the idea that every living thing has a right to life is not one I can subscribe to. Many many animals are only alive because they have been bred for slaughter. Appropriate abattoirs that reduce stress also allow meat eaters like me to enjoy a better steak.

Used to have a great local brewery too.

Giggirl & others Interesting views - mostly in accord. I do follow one "name" these days and try to see every play with Judi Dench, tho' I missed early booking for the De Sade play and missed her. Other actors that I'd also usually try to see include Ian McKellen, Michael Gambon and perhaps John Simms. I was lucky enough to see John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson in their last performances when a student. There is a theatrical geaneaology of actors that's part of my fascination with the stage.

pebbles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Trust me, Southwark Council don't cut down trees lightly. I'm a huge fan of trees but not when the tree on the road is ruining both ours and our neighbours houses. However no amount of proof and conversation with the council has sorted this> problem for us. i'm confused as to how trees can be more important than houses!!! Trees seem to arouse irrational feelings in some people. They are fabulous, living plants but they are not unique and can be regenerated. Many years ago I lived in the Lickey Hills, south of Birmingham. These hills were covered in literally 100's of thousands of Black Pine trees. My house had several in and around the garden. Two huge 100 ft + black pines were within 5 feet of the front door, leaning at what I considered a dangerous angle and lifting the pathway to the house. I was about to cut them down when someone reported my plans to the local council - overnight the two trees were given "protected status" by the Council's Tree Officer and I could do nothing. When I appealed and pointed out that the trees could fall onto my sons bedrooms I was told "but it takes a 100 years to grow another tree like yours, they must be more important". I never won my case to chop down the trees but did win an Ombudsman complaint against the council for abusing it's processes.

I was buying tickets for a West End show this week - the person in front of me was demanding a refund for the previous evening when instead of the star name performer the lead role had been played by the understudy. Question: What is more important - the play or the actors? Does this change if the principal actor(s) are "names"? In my view - the play is the most important element, the actor of course brings something to the play but they are, usually, secondary to the writer's intention. Yet I acknowledge that certain actors are bigger than the play or that by virtue of their reputation and interpretation bring out something more from the play than others might. This latter point is probably more relevant in classic plays - David Tennant as Hamlet, Adrian Lester as Henry V, Judi Dench as Titania (played as an aging Queen Elizabeth 1) in Midsummer's Night Dream all added a piquancy that refreshed the plays they were in.

Posts in this thread have been of three kinds: 1. Posts that have, on the whole attempted to be rational and objective - refraining from slagging off other points of view but setting out their support for the management case. 2. Posts that raise the temperature by resorting to emotional blackmail - "firefighters put their lives on the line every time they don their uniform" or "firefighters are lazy, two job, public sector workers living off the taxes of the private sector" 3. Posts that seem to want to follow the rational / objective argument but feel that "solidarity" demands they support the workers against the management. For what it's worth my take hasn't changed since my first post when I asked for clarity on the firefighters case. Moflo put up the thread asking us to support our firefighters, but made no rational case for her request or for the strike. A casual, and subsequent more in depth, review of the cases put by management and unions made her request, for me, illogical. Management must manage, and be allowed to manage. It has a job to do - balancing resources against need. In today's financial climate with all public sector funding under strain they would be derelict if they did not take measures to improve productivity and reduce, wherever possible, costs while still maintaining the service. For the most part management in UK is as hard pressed, stressed yet also as desirous of doing the right thing as any shop floor worker. In the Fire Brigade the management has the huge advantage of having all been selected from the shop floor - they know what goes on, tho' I could be persuaded that the LFB has not invested enough in giving all its management the range of management skills necessary as they move from the shop floor. For those that argue that management has failed to manage properly - I ask what they would have done differently? 16 months ago the initial proposals to change the shift patterns were put to the union formally - tho' they have been "in play" for much longer than that. Repeated attempts to discuss and agree on change have been stonewalled by the union. Two months ago the management invoked Section 188, not because they wanted the union to call a strike but because they wanted the union to make some decision. Perhaps management could have given notice that they would give notice of S188 - which would have given the union slightly longer to contemplate their response(s) - but once that stance has been taken management must follow through with the S188. I support the management for all the reasons that have been posted in support of the management case (including Hugenot's excellent, twice reprinted, summary) I consider the FBU to be intransigent, not one rational reason has been made by the FBU, the strikers or their supporters in defence of the status quo - except that it is the status quo and that firefighters are "good people". I do not challenge the latter statement - but being good people is not sufficient reason to condone costly, inefficient practices that arguably also damage health and do little to support family life. Defence of the status quo is usually considered reactionary and regressive - words that many EDF readers would automatically recoil from - but, strangely, some don't in this case. I now bow out of this debate again - predicting that the FBU will do a "Scargill" and lead their "good people" into the wilderness and that within 12 months time, and probably sooner, the London Fire Brigade will be working to a 12 / 12 / 12 / 12 shift pattern.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Might be hard to sell your house though > computedshorty I once bought a hospital for Nuffield Health - the lady (and I mean Lady with capital L) after which the hospital was named was buried in the rose garden. The sale & purchase agreement had a special clause that - forbade the purchaser to build over the Rose Garden or, if building was to occur then the body was to be removed to another site at the purchaser's expense. Personally - I'm going for a burial at sea

Brum, Most of the facts that Hugenot has referred to are available on this thread in papers posted by Boss Boss 999 and myself (I also posted the FBU response paper - about three / four pages back). However, few of those supporting the strike seem to have read them or, if they have read them, haven't yet been able to refute the points made in the LFB papers.

Moflo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- So what are you saying MM, that there shouldn't be public sector workers? that they all are a drain on society? That all sections of society should be in the private sector so that we can return to the victorian Mill owner mentality and that all workers should be subservient and thankful for their lot? No - you demonstrate an incredible ability to misread a comment. What I said, and what Hugenot has also stated, is that tax paid by public sector workers has no impact or value since it is simply recycled taxpayers money.

Dita, It's not quite that bad in absolute terms. Today's average salary is approx ?24,000. If someone put away roughly ?3,000 a year, (?3,000 is about 15% of post tax ?24,000 income - a large % but perhaps worth it) they would generate a pension pot of ?275,000 - giving a pension of roughly ?12,000 - which with a state pension of ?7,000 would give a post working life pension of ?19,000 - by no means a fortune but equivalent to 78% of working salary. If, over time, they can afford to put a greater % into the pot or they maintain that % of a higher salary so the pension pot value and subsequent pension rises.

Moflo - just a point of information - firefighters and other public sector workers may well pay tax - but they do so from a salary that is paid from taxation. Once upon a time the military didn't pat pay tax. Then in order to make their salaries more comparable with non military service they were given a pay rise that exactly equalled the tax they were to pay. Net they received absolutely no benefit and the tax they paid had no value to the exchequer as it was simply gov't / taxpayers money being recirculated. In fact less than no value as it had cost money to collect the tax due. In exactly the same way firefighters and other public sector employees tax has no value.

For Comment: This article, while somewhat sensationalist given its provenance, merits a response from the FBU and other supporters of the strike. Three points made in the article are: a. Firefighters earn, in London, ?33,500 a year - rising to between ?40,000 and ?50,000 with overtime. b. That up to one third of London firefighters have second jobs c. That the strike is about protecting an outdated working practices The article goes on to suggest that the FBU is opposed to change, that changing times and significantly reduced incidence of fires make the current shift pattern out of date, that the 15 hour night shift where sleeping is allowed supports the 2nd job culture.

I've posted this comment elsewhere but it goes to Sean's JOnathan Freedland quote. If you look at the graph it can be seen that the last 10 years have seen a significant acceleration in the rate of gov't spending. It is this acceleration that has caused the structural deficit which we are all now having to "pay" for in cuts to gov't spending. The long term trend is inexorably upwards - fine if it matches Britain's economic growth as it demands no more than taxpayers can afford. Essentially this is what UK can cope with. Bad if the spending rate exceeds economic growth as someone, somwewhere has to fund the gap. In the short term borrowing can cover off the shortfall but not forever. From roughly 1982 through to 1998 the short term trend was less than the long term upward trend, public sector spending was growing but at a slower rate than economic growth. From 1998 till recently the rate at which gov't spending was growing looks to have been about twice the long term rate - unsustainable in the long term, it was bound to end in tears. There have been periods in the past when gov't spending growth exceeded the long term trend and the areas above the line therefore represent "unacceptable / unrealisable" spending rates. The areas below the trend line represent periods where though slower gov't spending the tax payer was retaining more of their money. I would suggest that any government can only change the long term trend with the agreement of the electorate - and since the long term trend hasn't changed in 50 years perhaps the electorate doesn't want it to move much in either direction, one being toward sustained higher taxes and higher gov't spending or alternatively, lower gov't spending and lower taxes. It would be nice to think that post 2014 when this era of austerity may be coming to an end that it can be used as a platform to get back under the long term trend.

But Sean & BB - you're are both arguing against the grain. For more than 40 years the average UK gov't spending has been on / around the 40% of GDP mark. Other countries have a higher or lower acceptable level - USA is probably closer to 35% (or perhaps lower), Scandinavia maybe closer to 50% (or perhaps higher) - the level is not a matter of what can be afforded but what is socially acceptable - the actual level is neither intrinsically good or bad. This 40% mark seems to represent the acceptable level for the majority of UK tax payers. The recent splurge has taken gov't spending to closer to 47% of GDP and the Coalition savings plan is aimed at getting back toward the 40 year trend. To shift from the "norm" a country needs to be persuaded of the benefit in some fashion. The last administration took us to the higher proportion of GDP spent on public sector not by persuading taxpayers it was a good idea to increase taxes (and a case can be made if enough choose to do so) but by extending borrowing - which is unsustainable. So, in my view, something has to go and the problem is about making decisions - not about the need to reduce gov't spending. Perhaps Ed Milliband will persuade voters that all of us paying more taxes is a sensible move, perhaps some extreme libertarians will persuade David Cameron to create the small government I have often proposed. However, until either event comes about UK is stuck on or around the 40% of GDP spending trend and the problems this creates. I personally don't think that the taxpayer can be pressed much further. 85% are taxed at roughly 22% or less and are finding it hard to get by. 15% of the country are higher rate tax payers - meaning that every penny they earn over ?44K is taxed at 41%, if they rise to the 3% earning over ?100K the rates increases to about 45% with progressive loss of tax free thresholds such that if they earn over ?150K (a very small % of the population) they are taxed at 51%, with no tax relief at the lower level, taking a marginal rate to close to 60%. All those figures ignore the impact of indirect taxes such as VAT, pension taxes, petrol taxes, green taxes etc. Increasing taxes on bankers or businesses won't generate enough by itself, the targets represent too small a fraction of the total tax paying community. Solid growth with low gov't borrowing is the way out of the problem - combined they may mean there are enough funds to support again some of the critical areas you have both described.

Ridgley, Sean, The problem is tho' that the country cannot go on financing all the nice / good / laudable activities previously funded on what was, effectively, an overdraft. I dispute the claimed ideological nature of the current savings programme - the Tories I associate with are mostly "one nation" tories and regret the necessity of reducing gov't spending, their preferred stance going forward would be the "shared proceeds of growth" model that is, regrettably at present impractical - growing public spending at a slower rate than the growth in GDP. Conversely the libertarians I associate with accuse the Coalition of timidity. I can see the argument for retaining some / all / much of the spend on local grants schemes, tho' in passing I'd comment that if they're funded from gov't sources they are not, strictly, charities but more like quangos. My alternatives would include reducing funding set aside to maintain free access to museums and other arts events / funding, to reduce the growth in overseas aid, to fight tooth & nail to restrict EU donations (topical today). I'd probably also bring forward the troops out of Afghanistan to enable a reduction in the Army budget (spending half that saving on retaining Harriers for the aircraft carriers)

PS: Can we see you list of questions when complete? Thanks MM

What scientific problem was solved by a joiner from Lincolnshire and led to the establishment of the Greenwich Meridian? What was the name of the joiner? How to determine Longitude at sea. John Harrison, clockmaker, whose first clock was made entirely of wood

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed so marmora. Only it tends to be a dialogue rather than a top down edict. > > The Workers should be annoyed with their leadership for not presenting their case, but equally it's a colossal failure of management to not be able to persuade their workforce of the merits of their own proposals. If I was a firefighter i wouldn't strike, but if i was management i would shelve the proposals pending further discussions. I don't see blame as being on one side Indeed - I fully agree. This is not lions being managed by donkeys - or donkeys being managed by lions. I've said as much in earlier posts. The dispute arises from about poor behaviour and intransigence on both sides - neither side seems to have any tactical nous. On the I would tend to support the management's right to manage - but recognise that that doesn't make them blameless.