Marmora Man

I'd like to respond more fully to dc later if I can find time. However Loz's quote below is quite depressing There's nothing positive in this at all. Nothing about developing new policies, nothing about establishing Labour as a viable alternative, nothing about responding to the public's concerns. Just hoping the "other side" will fail and let Labour get back in. Left of centre politics and policies are not a default setting - those that wish to support Labour must present a case and an argument if they wish to form the next government.

New mown grass - just cut the lawn

Was handed a brand new and crisp fiver in my change today. After five years of crumpled and scruffy notes it felt good. I've stashed it away at the back of my wallet.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- That said, I definitely don't think they should be expected to miss the birth of their child, you wouldn't be in most jobs. Keef - in my old job it was said you could be present at conception or birth but not both

As both a small "c" and large "C" conservative I think the list goes far enough, for now. Revolutionary change is rarely good, slow evolutionary change is generally better. My preference would be to see how these changes play out before we embark on further changes. Of course as I also have libertarian instincts - the idea of lots of government, certainly lots of big government, is anathama to me.

colonelchips Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As an aside, Si Mangia gets run down on here every > so often when we've always found it to be really > good I'd second this. Was in there last night with son no 2 - it does what it does really well. It's a local, family run Italian that provides good food at good prices with friendly staff. The occasional Limoncello provided with the bill is always a nice touch.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cuts cuts cuts. Here they come - "at least ?20 > billion from the NHS" for starters. That's the NHS > fukced then. What did Cameron say "the NHS is safe > in our hands." Yeah! Like hell it is. That ?20bn of cuts was already factored into the NHS budget by the Labour gov't and its 5 year spending plan for the NHS. It represents the difference between a general budget increase over 5 years that is in line with UK inflation as measured by CPI and "real" NHS inflation of staff and consumables costs that rises by significantly more than CPI. That's the reality of gov't spending - all dep'ts seem to have a higher rate of inflation than the national measure. So that's ?20bn of cuts not to be blamed on the Lib Con coalition - there'll be plenty of cuts to blame them for soon I'm sure, tho' the cuts are required to balance the books left behind by G Brown and co; they are not being implemented out of malice & spite. One action taken has been to increase tax on certain Capital Gains - not a standard Tory move, but a necessary one unfortunately.

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good to see the new cabinet agree to a 5% cut > which is a good start Next step is to reduce the actual numbers of MPs, in the Conservative manifesto I think - which coincidentally reduces numbers from Scotland and therefore probably no. of Lib Dems in parliament?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marmora Man Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bequeathes a damaged > > economy, the highest national debt and fiscal > > deficit ever. > > What would the tories have done differently? There > was a world-wide recession, lots of countries are > in the same boat. I actually think that GB did an > OK job of keeping the economy afloat. > > > left in disgrace after taking the country into > two major > > wars - losing the lives of over 500 British > > servicemen and women. > > The Conservatives supported the war too, though. > Only the lib dems were opposed to it, as I > recall. > > By all means, pull Labour up on their failures - > but try to do so objectively... Jeremy - don't really want to get into tit for tat arguments but ........ 1. Other countries were / are affected by the global financial crisis but not many (if any) had already built up a major deficit by funding so much of gov't spending by debt. 2. Yes Tories voted for the war - but they didn't write the dodgy dossier on which much of the parliamentary decision was based and, generally if Tories send troops to war they are given full support and back up. The Falklands was a war no one anticipated but all stops were pulled out to fund all necessary actions and equipment to back up the military - even to the extent of converting SS Canberra over a weekend to take helicopters and act as a hospital ship.

Sue, You would be referring to the arrival of Tony Blair and Labour in 1997 I take it? The administration that inherited a growing and balanced economy, no significant deficit and falling interest rates but bequeathes a damaged economy, the highest national debt and fiscal deficit ever. The man who arrived to an Alastair Campbell manufactured frenzy of fake joy and left in disgrace after taking the country into two major wars - losing the lives of over 500 British servicemen and women. Who wasted the historic opportunity to tackle public sector service failings and whose "Education, education, education" and Tough on crime, tough on the causes if crime" mantras ring hollow today. It's not how you start the race but how it finishes that counts. David Cameron has started slowly, quietly and with a warning that it's going to be tough - let's see how he runs the race and where he finishes before you start to write him off.

In the 19th century and before the Royal Navy served all meals on square plates - mostly with raised edges known as "fiddles", that stopped food falling off the plate in rough weather. It is said that the phrase "a square meal" comes from the RN and that the term "fiddling" comes from the naval "crime" of overloading a plate to the extent that the food touched the fiddle - a sailor was alleged to have fiddled his colleagues out of their fair share of the food on offer. Fiddles still exist - tho' are simply fitted to the table now to stop round plates rolling around the table in rough weather. No square plates in this household, tho' we do have a rectangular"ish" thing for serving long & thin dishes - swiss rolls, rolled joints of meat etc.

As the OP may I summarise what I see as the majority position? 1. The initial reaction and creation of a roadside shrine is understandable, has merit as both a memorial and a reminder of someone's death. 2. It is recognised that creating and maintaining the memorial can help family and friends cope with their grief. However, not everyone would wish to remember their family or friends in this manner. 3. That the grave is probably the best place to establish a permanent memorial. 4. That if the shrine becomes a soggy mess of dead flowers, rotting teddy bears and smudged poems it is disrespectful to the memory of the victim rather than a celebration of their life. 5. That no one wishes to offend family or friends of the victim but that, on the whole, there should be a natural point at which the shrine can be removed - particularly if it is not being maintained. 6. That the memorial at the crossroads Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road is now in such a state that it should be tidied away. Overall approximately 2/3 of posts would subscribe to the points 1 - 6 above. I intend to ask the Council to take note.

Small but sufficient majority for Conservatives.

Tactical voting - beware of what you wish for. I'll be going against the grain of the EDf to vote Conservative.

What he actually meant, and has said before, is that he would set up a war ca inet which would have members of the two other principal parties on it. That is, to my mind, a sensible and rational act. Sensible to make it a real decision making forum using senior politicians of all types. On a more sly political level it alsoblunts any attacks from opposition parties if they have participated in the decisionmaking.

SteveO The absence of action is not an action. Nobody really loves politicians and there are seldom many positive reasons to vote for any - it is more usual to vote for the party that is least objectionable / closest to your own political beliefs. Personally, I'm of a libertarian instinct - I therefore look for maximum civil liberties, minimum regulation, small government and low taxes. No party meets all of my political aspirations but by involving myself in, and voting for, the party I do intend to vote for I obtain the right to debate, criticise and involve myself with the aim of moving their political objectives closer to mine. You don't want to be represented by a party whose members, in any other walk of life, would be in prison. Ignoring the blanket and unfair condemnation that that phrase implies, I would suggest there are parties that either currently have no MPs (Greens, SWLP, Respect etc), or the party that was least blameworthy in the expenses scandal. Like it or not - politics at Westminster is the way that the national business of governing UK - participating gives you a voice.

I'm with Tony Benn on this. If you don't vote it's not worth listening to your opinion. You must take part in the democratic process to criticise it - abstention is not a political statement.

Has anyone considered the impact of video games on this generation of military front line personnel? the pilot and crew were monitoring the scene and "enemy" via screens, head up displays and IR imaging. This both depersonalises the enemy and makes the whole look like a video game or battlefield simulation exercise. The calmness and pride apparently displayed may have owed something to the fact that they didn't really recognise the difference between reality and simulation.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh @#$%& off! Compared to Labour and the > especially the Tories they look practically > saintly. It may just be perception or my fading memory but I belive in overall terms Labour MPs were rather more greedy than Tories, tho' I'd admit the Tories generated better headlines with duck houses, moats and houses that looked like Balmoral. The crIminal charges score is 3 x Labour MPs and 1 x Tory peer

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Not often I agree with MM! :) I agree - nice to be on the same side of an issue for once!

I don't hang my head in shame. I am disappointed that Councillor Barber feels unable to make a decision, and that others seem to feel that by criticising a tatty display of rotting flowers, soggy teddy bears and illegible notes I am somehow unfeeling. I am raising, as I have done before, a reasonable query and criticism. The sense of this particular thread is, broadly, in favour of a time limit and a clear up. It's not nimbyism - it's about the value of a tatty display. The "Dianafication" of grief is something I neither understand or hold with. Grief, I believe, is more usually a private and very intense matter; not for public display. The flowers I referred to are not the memorial or shrine - they mark the site of the accident. The graveyard or cemetery is a more fitting place for permament memorials, while for the family - holding the collective memory of the dead child is probably more meaningful and fitting than a tired collection of dead flowers tied to a lampost. The link to the Brake organisation's guidelines was helpful - tho' even there I consider they bend over too far in trying to be sensitive to everyone's needs and to avoid giving offence. Sometimes a robust response at the right time is the correct thing to do. I believe it is the council's duty to make contact with the relatives after about three months and ask them if they have any desire to maintain the flowers. If they wish to - then it should look appropriate. If they no longer feel it's needed it can be cleared away.

Disappointed in your answer. As no one is looking after this "shrine" it's time for it to go. As I said in reply to ED Mummy - if the shrine were important to the child's family they would be tending it. Presumably they are now tending a proper memorial in a graveyard or cemetery somewhere - which is a far more appropriate location. Local politicians should be prepared to make a decision - you seem to be ducking it. In response to many other requests you have made contact with colleagues and / or Southwark Council but not this one.

Hugenot - you seem to agree that a hung parliament is likely to be unproductive and you see a need for change - what would that change be? At present, you'll be aware, there is an inbuilt Labour bias in the seats and constituencies. It takes roughly (from memory) 24,000 votes to elect a Labour MP, 30,000 to elect a Tory MP and about 38,000 to elect a Lib Dem. If constituencies could be equalised that might create a fairer distribution of seats but would still lead to coalitions, particularly in a close 3 horse race. The alternative vote (AV) option might work - I'm not fully au fait with the intricacies of its working. Would it lead to a single party in charge or, again, a coalition gov't? Are there any voting geeks out there to comment?

And such sophisticated political criticism. Every party is using Internet virals but only the the most committed are persuaded they have any value, generally they serve only to confirm prejudices. Would anyone really change your voting intentions on the basis of a YouTube spoof? If so - they should be disenfranchised.

There are several "Election" threads but none deliberately addressing this issue. My thoughts: 1. Yes coalition parliaments have worked well elsewhere abroad but not everywhere. Italy's history, until the Berliosconi regime, where they have had, almost, more governing coalitions than there have been years since WWII is not encouraging. 2. Coalition and "pact" parliaments in Scotland, N. Ireland and (Assembly) in Wales are not relevant examples as they do not exercise real tax raising powers - merely deciding how to spend their allocation from Westminster. Indeed the SNP and Plaid Cymru manifestos are explicitly planning to act as a lobby, to hold Westminster hostage, if they have any hold over a balance of power. 3. None of the major parties have given real thought to such an event - and their individual manifestos are deliberately and explicitly different with major fault lines between them. To join a coalition, parties would have to give up on manifesto pledges - which are the basis on which we, presumably, voted for them. 4. We cannot vote for a hung parliament - and cannot therefore predict the outcome. 5. Britain isn't used to such parliaments - a hung parliament is likely to arrive at the lowest common denominator in terms of policy and clarity, rather a radical shift from this current administration's obsession with cracking down on civil liberties, spending more than the country can afford and growing the state sector. 6. In the current economic situation a single clear majority will be far better than a coalition - not necessarily because the IMF will walk in (a la Ken Clarke's warning) but because it will be easier, simpler and clearer to have one single sense of direction than a compromise position. I would, marginally, prefer a new Labour government with a working majority to a hung parliament. I am still predicting a Conservative government will be elected with a working majority.