Marmora Man

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... or possibly Lee Van Cleef ? yep!

Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts. There's a whole story here - it puts me in mind of old westerns, saloon bars, saloon girls, a mystery man - sipping whiskey and watching. If it were a film it would be Clint Eastwood "Man with no Name" or one of the darker versions of Gunfight at the OK Corral.

Too late to recommend for Friday night - tho' I'd agree David Carnell's recommendation of Lagavulin, a favourite for many years and one I'll be dishing out at a Burns supper in two weeks time. Also recommend - Highland Park, Caol Isla, Talisker and many many others - some of which have been mentioned - I'd give a good few stars to Bruichladdich (pronounced Brew Laddy). However, for future reference I can recommend buying any whisky connoisseurs membership of the Scottish Malt Whisky Society - while it started out as a purely Scottish based organisation it now covers whisky's produced elsewhere (including Japanese, Welsh and even English) plus bourbons, plus apple brandies. It's club rooms in Edinburg (Leith) are excellent and the more recently opened London club room, while small still has an amazing selection of over 250 different malts on offer. It offers regular tastings, a good newsletter and the chance to buy some amazing, and sometimes obscure, single barrel cask strength whisky's. The only drawback to such a present is that your friend may end up spending a fortune on whisky and amass a collection of bottles and end up having too many on the shelves to the annoyance of wife / partner. I speak from experience!

We've just seen INherit the Wind - good performances but the play is a little creaky, tho' it was good to see the Old Vic with a sell out and critically acclaimed show. Tickets for Misanthrope and Waiting for Godot - so a good month in prospect.

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Members' booking opened today for both the > National Theatre and the Donmar Warehouse. > > At the National, public booking opens next week I think and you'll have to be very quick if you want > to see the new Alan Bennett play as it will sell out in the first day or so. That's "The Habit of > Art". Also booking is "The White Guard" and that will have Cate Blanchett (I don't know whether > that's been announced or not) so will sell very quickly. If you want to see either of these plays > then book next week as soon as they go on sale. I hope the National is still reserving 100 seats for every day of any performance on the main stage. It does mean it's possible to get into a "sell out" show if you're prepared to get up early and queue - which, even in this weather, can be fun if sensibly dressed, armed with sarnies and a thermos flask of sweet coffee laced with whisky / brandy.

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > After talking with council officers they have re > stated that the official opening time for all > Southwark parks that are locked is 8am. The > unlocking is carried out by our grounds contractor > Quadron as they are based in Dulwich Park. They > arrive on site around 7.15 am which means it is > possible to gain access by 7.30 am from the main > gates at College Road and Court Lane. There has > been no change to this arrangement. > > However as detailed in the Dulwich Park Friends > Newsletter, the park locks have been changed to > high security padlocks. This is needed to protect > the park infrastructure due to a series of > break-ins at the Caf? and Quadron yard including > locks going missing. This was decided in > consultation with the Friends. > > Since that newsletter was published a number of > residents have approached the park manager > revealing that they have keys to the gates and > were letting themselves into the park before > opening. Clearly not equitable. > > Some residents would like to access the park > earlier in the morning. In response to this > officers will ask the contractors to quote for an > earlier service and review the situation based on > the budget available. If Dulwich were to open > earlier we would need to fairly apply this policy > to all our major locked parks, and to adher to > safe working practices this could only be possible > in the lighter mornings from April to October. > > Any questions, observations, concerns let me know. Bad guys, as someone has already observed, will climb over the fences - or through the gaps in the fences. I understand that vandalism may be less if the parks are locked at sunset and opened again after dawn but it seems a major logistical and costly hassle - has anyone actually carried out a cost / benefit analysis? 120 gates at 5 mins per gate = 10 man hours a day, or 1.5 wte. Make the parks open access 24/7 but spend the money saved on random patrols to counter vandalism. If we must have the gates locked - could the notices that detail when this happens be made permanent rather than laminated paper tieclipped to fences - not excatly stylish. A permamanet notice could read "Gates open at 8.00am and shut 30 minutes after sunset" - it's up to individuals then to decide when sunset is, but the fact that it's getting dark is usually a clue.

Reggie, WE could keep the tit for tat argument going forever but to answer one of your questions: "Spent billions on the public sector services with little discernible effect" Would you prefer a tory government spending less on the public sector? Yes, Yes, Yes and in any case any incoming government of whatever political party will have to do just that.

Jimmy 2X said: The Tories represent the rich and always will d - I would suggest they represent a questioning of rapid change, a belief in the power of the individual, that the state cannot and should not dictate solutions for most areas of life. I was voting age through most of Thatcher's government and they did their utmost to get rid of the working class by 1. Smashing the unions - an absolutely necessary action. Too many unions weren't helping their members but exercising political power and damaging Britain's competitiveness. 2. Privatising National Industries - thus releasing the state to concentrate better on what it should be doing. Most of the privatised industries are now tax revenue generators, rather than government cost centres. 3. Encouraging the working class to believe they could be middle class by buying their own council homes. So how is this "representing the rich"? Allowing people to own a valuable asset rather than rent it from the State. 4. Encouraging greed. - I don't recall this - except in Harry Enfield comedy programmes. Encouraging people to take responsibility for their own costs and life is a Conservative policy - but it's not about greed. For all Labours faults, and there are many, they are still the best option that any working class person has. I cannot understand this argument. Class rhetoric / warfare is illogical these days. What is meant by the "working class" - unskilled blue collar workers? Lower paid workers living in social housing? Surely everyone wants to improve their life and every parent hopes that their children will live a better life than they did. Two generations ago my family was, I suppose, working class - one grandfather a printer, the other a fitter / turner. My father started out life as a 15 year old post boy in a London shipping office during the Blitz, went to sea during WWII as a sailor where he learnt morse code and about radios. This enabled him to become, following study at night school, an electrical engineer working on radars and echo sounders on ships in the Pool of London. I went to a local grammar school, passed A levels and joined the Navy as an officer cadet - becoming, by association, what you might call middle class, but to me that family trajectory is one that the Conservative party would applaud - Labour by contrast would apparently prefer that the working class remained working class. Why?

David C: National Minimum Wage..... which hasn't kept up with inflation and has acted as a deterrent to, some, job creation. Where do unpaid "interns" stand with regard to the minimum wage - a current Labour recommendation. Working Family Tax Credits.... which appears to have created a system where families with incomes up to ?50,000 are eligible for tax credits. Hardly the action of a party focussed on the low paid, working class. Child Trust Fund.... that have no significant worth. ?250 now might be worth ?2,000 by the age of 18 and in 18 years time what do you think ?2,000 will buy? Increased spending on education and health to record levels - you're confusing input with output. I don't dispute the spend but I would dispute the impact.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are working class vote Labour. The Tories > will do nothing for you. Gordon Brown is a good > man. So tell me precisely what has Labour done for the working class this last 12 years? Spent billions on the public sector services with little discernible effect. Encouraged waves of immigration to take over blue collar / unskilled jobs. Seen manufacturing decline by even more than in the 80's. Introduced stealth taxes, increased NI, introduced and then withdrawn the 10p tax band, sent Britain's armed forces to war leading to the deaths of over 300 young British men and women, predominantly from "old Labour" strongholds, as well as countless Iraqis and Afgahnis. Expanded the tertiary education system to encourage 50% of all young people into university - then seen it become an expensive, poor quality debt creation scheme for many with degrees of little benefit. Created the conditions that have exacerbated the world wide recession and led to a budget deficit that will take 10 years to resolve. Politics should not be tribal - it should be rational and objective. I can see no rational reason to vote Gordon Brown and Labour back into office.

There's probably a better correlation between the "unindulged child" and success. Children that are rewarded for success and either penalised, or have rewards witheld for lack of success, probably tend to be more successful than otherwise. Such an unindulged child may also, occasionally, receive the odd smack as part of a disciplined tough love approach? Children to whom all is given with no need to strive or deliver beforehand probably tend to be less successful. The over indulged and conspicuously unsuccesful children of many a successful business person, entrepreneur, film star, pop star etc give some credence to this theory.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There were loads being set off from Dawson > Heights ..... where you > can see absolutely everywhere in London from > Battersea Power Station round to Canary Wharf. On > a clear day I think you can see Blackpool Tower. Blackpool Tower would have to be approximately 8 miles high (3 miles higher than Everest) for it to be seen from London. As a rough rule of thumb for a 6 foot person at ground level the ground level horizon is 3.5 miles away. At 100 feet you can the horizon is about 12 miles away - tho if at 100 feet you would see the top of a 100 foot mast at twice that distance - 24 miles.

Private Healthcare v NHS Publicly funded healthcare will, generally, be conservative - and adopt a "wait & see" approach to many complaints that people visit their GP with and not arrange full diagnostics such has CT and / or MRI scans or very specific blood analyses. Private healthcare will tend to go to the other extreme and go for all / most possible tests to rule out the unlikely but possible diagnoses. Practical example - sudden onset of severe one sided headaches. Initial, very reasonable, GP thinking - adverse reaction to blood pressure medication therefore plan a change of medication and a follow up in four weeks time. A private consultation arranged immediately (within 60 minutes) a CT scan to rule out possible, but extremely unlikely, brain tumour. For the tax payer conservative treatment makes sense as 85% - 95% of symptoms are non life threatening and arranging costly diagnostics does not represent value for money. As a patient a BUPA policy paying for the CT scan made for great peace of mind. PS: A BUPA full cover private medical insurance policy for family of four will cost between ?3,500 and ?5,000 depending upon age, previous / current medical conditions and level of cover sought. The NHS at ?90 ++ billion pa represents a cost of ?1,500 a head for every man, woman and child in the country. My own practical exprerience and belief is that the NHS could do far more with the same money or deliver the same level of service for far less money.

Atila Reincarnate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hope she sues the council for failing to grit > the pavement. Is this really an appropriate action? Was the fall all down to the lack of grit? Accidents happen. Trips, falls and bumps are part of life - most of us live with it rather than turn to the law for recompense. It was icy out with heavy snow, individuals have a responsbility to act safely. What sort of shoes was the individual wearing, did she/ he need to be out, were they using a walking stick? Larron's response thanking the public sector staff that helped is far more appropriate than recommending suing another public sector department. I dislike knee jerk litigation.

Statistically air travel is one of the safest way to travel. The measure "fatalities per 1,000,000 hours of travel" has fallen from over 40, 20 years ago to below 20 today. The most likely cause of an air crash is pilot error or engine failure - reducing cabin crew numbers is not going to affect either of these. For a reduction in cabin crew numbers to have an effect on passenger safety the plane would first of all have to crash (most unlikely), for that statistically improbable crash to be at least partially surviveable (not usually the case) and then for the cabin crew, and passengers, to have remembered their drills but be hampered by having one less person to guide, lead and offer first aid. The actual impact on safety in the air of reducing cabin crew numbers by 1 would be so small as to be immeasurable - a poor argument.

WHY? The NHS will be under severe financial pressure for the next 5 - 10 years and probably longer. If everyone campaigned for their local hospital and services to remain exactly where they are, frozen in time there can be no change. While the NHS will always be costly, sensible change will allow it to become more cost effective. With Kings, Guys and St Thomas' all within a 30 minute public transport journey I cannot see a great case for retaining some minor NHS services in a Victorian building that is not fit for purpose at the, metaphorical, "end of my street". Sensible amalgamation of services in better premises - but within reasonable reach will benefit more people by allowing available funding to be spent more effectively on wider services. PS: The NHS could also stop funding Homeopathy, Chiropractice, Osteopathy and similar services as well to spend the money on more effective, and evidence based, treatments.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do people think it is a new concept? I > remember my dad explaining global warming and the > greenhouse effect to me when I was a kid in the > ?80s. I remember my Geography teacher presenting a very believable case for the coming of the next Ice Age in the forthcoming century when I was at school in the 60's. The age of the argument doesn't, necessarily, give it credibility.

I will enter this debate. The Guardian's diagram is useful in breaking down public spending into areas but doesn't and couldn't indicate (the picture would be huge if it did), the various sub headings of exenditure within, say, the Department of Health. It is not the departments that need to be cut but the many, various and seemingly worthwhile projects inside those projects which all have their standard bearers and champions. Within my two areas of practical knowledge - defence and health I know there are major elements of inefficient and a lot of simply redundant spending. Cutting the DoH spend need not mean reducing the number of nurses - but it might mean reducing the number of unnecessary training courses and meetinsg that nurses attend to the detriment of their primary duty. I am with ???? in this argument. I would propose the idea of a total freeze on public spending for three years - holding the budget to the 2008/09 level until April 2012. Three years on absolutely no real growth in funds and, effectively three years of reducing value in budgets would concentrate managerial minds wonderfully. There are some structural costs over which Gov't has little control - unemployment benefit being one of the more obvious, public sector pensions being another. These costs will come in as unemployment grows or public sector workers retire. It would be the Treasury's job to absorb these costs and reduce sspending elsewhere to keep the total gov't spend at today's level. At the same time there should be a major review - entitled "What is Government for". Most regular readers would know the outcome I would desire, but if done properly, independently and with real academic rigour perhaps the nation as a whole could decide whether it wants to be a high tax, high government spending society (as, say, Sweden is characterised) or something else. Whatever the options identified they could be presented as a democratic choice via a general election in 4 years time. Two anecdotes to illustrate room for manoevre: Discussion re funding of a particular DoH sponsored project: Me: We estimate the budget to be ?89,000 for next year DoH: Can't you make it over ?100,000 - we've a lot of money to spend before year end, if we don't spend it we won't get the same bugdet next year. Discussion re major programme to change and "improve" appraisals and revalidation of Doctors. Me: So the DoH plans to create a system to appraise and revalidate doctors professional skills? Will it make any real difference to the quality of patient care? DoH: Probably not. Me: But it will involve almost 1,000 doctor years to appraise and revalidate everyone of the 100,000 doctors in UK over a rolling 5 year period. DoH: Yes - that's about right. Me: So will you be reducing the number of hours devoted to patient care by that much or increasing the numbers of doctors by that much to maintain time spent of patient care? DoH: Oh, I haven't thought about that yet. Me: But you want to implement this from 2010. DoH: Yes Me: God help us!

The Peckham Sq event had to be shifted to Rye Lane (outside Iceland) and was reportedly very successful (I couldn't join them on this occassion). Many enquiries, rational discussions - I think Ratty may have been there as someone did say that they "wouldn't p*** on our candidate even if he was on fire" but everyone else was polite, interested and [pleasant. The event will no doubt be repeated.

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can I bring some eggs? Balanced argument again I see.

Andy and the local Conservative Association will be in Peckham Square tomorrow (Saturday 5th Dec) from 11.00 to 15.00 - ready to talk, discuss and answer questions. Come along and see if we match up to Ratty's weird caricature or are, as I contend, normal sensible people just like you.

No I'm arguing that the total government spending must be reduced - while maintaining the current, ridiculously high tax take to deal with the structural deficit that this government has created. Once that problem is under control I would argue that reduced government spending will allow them to reduce the total tax take - and propose that the first beneficiaries of reduced tax take should be those on lower incomes, by raising tax thresholds and reducing the rate. I would also argue for reduced tax rates across all bands - losing the 50p rate but only AFTER the reduction at lower rates. I only argue for this to placate you and your fellow thinkers as, in reality it won't generate any real income for government but it is, now, seen as symbolic and I don't underestimate the power of symbols.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like your idea Marmora Man (if not your > politics) > > But calling it honesty doesn't make it any better > - expecting the less well off to pay for righting > the wrongs of this government whilst shrugging > shoulders at the rich threat to flee the country > doesn't sit well with me > > I don't think it's too much to ask any/all party > to put a moral onus on the rich. yes they will > still move elsewheer but at least they can carry > the stigma of being splitters instead of being > "understood" There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about "the rich", their tax and the tax system. The entire tax take from Income Tax represents approximately 20% of the total tax take in UK - which is now close to 45% of GDP. Of that 20%, those paying the top rate of tax probably contribute the most say 65%. Those paying the top rate represent approx 30% of the population and are paying the bulk of income tax - yet even if their tax rates were to be doubled to 80p in the pound it would only raise the income from income tax from 20% of total taxation to just over 30%. Leaving corporations, VAT, Council tax, Rates, Road Tax, Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax and a multitude of other obscure and devious taxes to fund the vast bulk of government spending. So it is economic illiteracy to assume that by simply taxing "the rich" we can resolve the years of unwise public spending. It's also worth noting that "the rich" (or those that pay the higher rate of tax) are those earning approximately ?40,000 and includes many nurses, policemen, middle ranking civil servants and so on. I woudl also add that I have proposed in these pages before a slashing of taxes on the lower paid and a raising of tax thresholds to at leasdt ?10,000. This to be paid for by abolishing many tax credits and benefits, and making others more focussed by only being available to those on incomes of less than ?50,000. I know the Lib Dems have proposed something similar but it's been in my personal manifesto for years.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But do I think things will be worse under a > Conservative government? Absolutely - I think the > Tories are basically admitting as much I think is called honesty - tho' I'd admit they are not being totally candid about either the extent of the problem nor the extent of the measures needed to resolve it.