Marmora Man

BBW - thanks but I did my bit living the gritty London life in Green Lane N. London - prefer the quainter end of life now.

Wheely bins = good. Small wheely bins = better. After all now we're recycling so much it's b****y hard to even half fill a standard green wheely bin.

Vince - good to read a fellow minded EDF'er. I plan to comment further on the More4 evening that Gallinello recommended once I've watched the programmes.

gallinello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If so, and the idea of the hill-top vista appeals, > why not take a fantastic walk from Archway Station > up Highgate Hill, Swains Lane and Highgate > Cemetery ("All that is solid melts into air, all > that is holy is profaned, and man is at last > compelled to face with sober senses, his real > conditions of life, ..."), Highgate High Street > and then walk down to Hampstead Heath, along > Highgate West Hill, finishing up at Parliament > Hill for, what I would consider, the finest view > of the metropolis. Thanks - Sounds good - tho' contrary to Quids recommendation I'd probably just acknowledge George Eliot's and MIchael Faraday's graves.

For clarity the Brick Lane "experience" I was referring to was the Beigel Bake - here I hadn't particularly thought about the curry lane end of the area. Also the Columbia Flowqer Market has more than flowers - you tend also to see / meet clubbers exiting the saturday night parties and looking for coffee & carbohydrates - the two six foot plus Australian muscular transvestite's in mini skirts we met last time were something of an eye opener for friends from a small village in Scotland - as was the back chat between them and the market traders. Agree lots of tourists visit Borough market to gawp -= but it's still an enjoyable shopping experience - maybe not entirely unique to London - but fun, particularly if you get there before 10.30. I was hoping readers would suggesty other options - I like the "visit a hill" idea - seeing London spread out below is always inspiring.

Where do you take "out of towners" to show off London to them? Recent successes have been to shop (early) at Borough Market, buying the ingredients for supper while wandering around and then having a lunch / beer / wine somewhere along the South Bank and watching the street performers. Columbia Road Flower Market on a Sunday morning is better - really crowded, fantastic plants and flowers, quirky shops and several good cafes for breakfast. Can be combined with a stop at a Brick Lane 24 hour bagel shop and Petticoat Lane market where all human life can be seen and heard. Do you have recommendations for other outings that show the best of London without being standard tourist trail fodder.

Problem is that mediocre management leads to mediocrity. The Civil Service (if it can be purged of the politicisation of recent years) is meant to be the management arm of an Executive that leads, inspires and directs - using imagination and far sighted thinking. That's idealist I'd agree - but that's what I want.

Leagle E (or Chav as I remember you) your statement Surely mean that there will always be class conflict - for if those labouring in an industry take over the control of production they become, by default the ruling class - and someone else must become the labouring class. It becomes a never ending pointless cycle. I just see it as a far more simple problem - how best to manage an industry and just cannot understand why it needs to be politicised in the way that you and Galli require - it doesn't help resolve the differences. I acknowledge that others have come out in support of the Lindsey workers - and I'm surprised. Let's see how much impact such secondary action has.

TLS always seems to be up for lengthy games of ping pong on the Forum.

You can listen via your PC all around the world. Just go to the TMS website via BBC. My experience is you won't get Radio 4 that far away - to get a reliable analogue signal much more than 250 / 500 miles away you need a very low frequency (VLF) carrier wave - which also has a very low data rate and doesn't suit voice transmission.

Calm down dear - it's only a very old song.

Huguenot Wrote: -----------------------------------------------------. If a politician takes funding from these huge resources, they are strategically bound to legislate to their requirements. I think this is debatable. Political parties set out their stall and ask the electorate to choose. The stall also attracts donors which enable the parties to make a more attractive stall. It is, theoretically, possible for one major donor to skew policy, but given no party is seeing really significant donors and that Barack Obama's model of using web technology to generate hundreds of thousands of small donations I don't think this is likely to be a problem going forward. If you look at the "single issue" parties funded by a few donors with specific agendas they haven't hqad much success. The3 Labour, Lib Dems and Tory parties are bigger than any one donor or group of donors. Chuck in 'first past the post' and you've got a tinderbox. FPTP gives certainty and allows "step changes" to policy and governments. The last such step change was probably in 1979 - the Blair / Brown governments evolving from the Conservative position rather than creating a radical break with the past. Your proposal for STV elections is, at first glance attractive, but what you see as advantages I see as dangers - danger of creating soft middle ground government where there is no real political meat to chew on. Elections become simply a way to choose an alternative set of managers rather than a government with a mandate for change[ It is a shame that the country has to be run on either a Marxist mandate, or a Thatcherite one, but never the middle ground. The middle ground is not a good place to be - it used to be called "sitting on the fence" It creates highly a highly polarised political environment that pays scant respect to the needs of the people. I'd agree there is a lack of respect but not that we are living in a period of highly polarised politics. Both major parties are going to be massively constrained by the financial state of play. Labour would spend a little more and tax a little more, the Conservatives would spend a little less and tax a little less. As a right of centre man I'd prefer to see some more polarisation - more radical cuts in the public sector, a severe reduction in government bureaucracy and a commitment to a simpler, ideally flat rate, lower tax regime. BTW, you can take it as rote that I don't accept the concept of proportional representation either, as it divorces the ruling elite from the electorate. Great - one point we are in 100% agreement. I'm sorry if I implied that your grassroots outfit was filthy rich, but I would suggest that anyone you vote in would either have to be, or be the lapdog of someone who is, if politicians were personally funded. Our man is not personally funded and certainly not filthy rich.

Gallinello, The Royal Mail situation as I understand it. There are actually four separate businesses: 1. Royal Mail - letter and packet delivery 2. General Logistics Systems, a pan-Europe company providing parcel, express services and other logistic services 3. Parcelforce Worldwide, the express parcel service and the UK arm of GLS 4. Post Office Ltd - running post offices in 2007 a parliamentary committee described the Royal Mail as much less efficient and less profitable than its main European peers, stating that it was ?the least profitable postal company amongst its Western European peers, and the only one to make an operating loss." The report gave reasons for this relative inefficiency, they were a. The network mail centres and delivery offices, which have not been rationalized b. The lack of automation in sorting and walk-sequencing c. Inefficient working practices d. Pay set above market rates, leading to a situation in which labour costs at Royal Mail Group were among the highest of European postal companies. In addition I understand that every 1% fall in GDP creates a loss of approx ?300m in Royal Mail Revenue - so taking 2008/09, 09/10 and probably 10/11 into account the Royal Mail is looking at the loss of ?1b in revenue, this in a business that is scarcely breaking even at present. Given the above I want to make a few points - on which I'd be interested to hear your thoughts: 1. The postal service of UK is just that - a service. It has no role above and beyond the efficient collection, distribution and delivery of letters and parcels. It could be a for profit or a not for profit service ? but it must be efficient and should not cost the tax payer money. 2. Since its inception in the mid 19th century until fairly recently is has been, effectively, a monopoly service. Such a position usually erodes enterprise and imagination in a business. 3. Changes in communications has impacted severely upon the basic service - faxes, e-mails, independent courier services have all reduced the market for Royal Mail services. 4. The Royal Mail business model no longer seems fit for purpose. 5. To survive it must adapt and change - but, in the words of the old Irish joke, if you want to get there I wouldn't start from here. For years Royal Mail has trimmed a bit here, cut a bit there, modified delivery times a little, changed targets but it has not been subject to any fundamental overhaul. 6 Royal Mail management and the CWU seem to have different interpretations of the agreement to work together to modernise. 7. Both the management and the CWU seem to be rooted in an out of date model of business and consultation ? and if they cannot move on from this Royal Mail is destined to fail slowly and at great cost to the tax payer, its staff and the declining number of users. I still don't see any of this as a "class struggle" - it looks like a failing business that needs radical action to keep it whole and operating. The first priority must be maintaining the business in existence, once the patient is off life support other issues can be tackled. I can understand that you argue from a left of centre / marxist and presumably a belief in state ownership - but to me the issue has nothing to do with political theory and is a more pragmatic question of how best to deliver a service. Your description was about process - not about the ultimate purpose and business role for the Royal Mail. If I were a manager within RM I would want to be radical: a. Divest any loss making, or potential loss making services where the competitors are already far ahead. b. Rationalise mail centres and delivery offices ? selling off redundant real estate, ideally to fund the pension shortfall. c. Work with staff to resolve the inefficient working practices, lack of automation and proper use of IT for sequencing. (I have no knowledge of these ? but anecdotes from friends who worked as postmen during university years and many recent articles on the subject all indicate there is scope for improvement). d. As part of c. above negotiate pay deals that, over time, reduce the total staff cost of the business ? both by reducing the absolute number of staff and also their rates of pay. My experience of public sector would suggest that such actions would fall as hard, or harder on the middle and senior management as on front line workers ? and that is right. Management should exist to make the work of those delivering (no pun intended) the service simpler, in the public sector all too often this is not the case and they simply get in the way. PS: Apologies for length of post but I read yours at lunchtime and then thought about my response while travelling. Also - on withering of the state - I would love to see it happen.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But then MM you'd be hoist by your own petard. > > If this is indeed a political campaign, then so is > yours. > > Any campaign against funding for MPs biases > representation to the independently wealthy, and > those holding down jobs such as 'non-executive > directorships' that require no effort. Hugenot - I can assure there are very few (read "none") independently wealthy in the Camberwell & Peckham Conservative Association! Don't forget also that the other major party - Labour uses the unions to provide many millions of pounds to fund its campaigns - balancing contributions from these mythical independently wealthy donors to the Consercatives. Of course the "take" on either side varies with the likelihood of that party gaining power and the acceptability of its policies. I think it's right that unions, other organisations and individuals can choose to fund political parties. I think it's wrong that the taxpayer funds the "communications" of any sitting MPs of any party.

Gallinello, I will record the programme and review later. The Lindsey Refinery workers are on an unofficial strike. They were asked to return to work - they didn't. Legislation has existed since the 70's that allows an employer to dismiss staff under such circumstances. The leaders of the strike appear to be both unaware of this legislation or have determined to ignore it. Either way they let their members down - bad tactics on their part compounded by stating unequivocably on the Today programme this morning that they will only return to work if every single worker is re-instated. That kind of rhetoric is again poor tactics. That it has arrived at this point is, to my mind, evidence of poor management by managers and union leaders - not conspiracy against "the workers". In better managed businesses the management and staff work together in the best interests of the ongoing business - cf: Honda and other car manufacturers minimising redundancies and going on short term working - everybody shares the pain but in the long run the business survives. I do not see any of this - the miners strike, or the Lindsey refinery strike as class conflict. They are industrial disputes - about how to best manage the business in the interests of all - workforce, shareholders and management. I very much doubt there will be many, if any, solidarity strikes. The forthcoming part privatisation of the Royal Mail is, I assume, an issue close to your heart. Yet the Royal Mail must take action to reduce its costs and improve efficiency - and in particular action to improve management and resolve the vast pension liabilities. I have heard much rhetoric from those on the left about fighting the planned part privatisation - and undoubtedly the current weakness of Brown's government has made the plan less likely to succeed. If the opposition succeeds, and the Royal Mail continues unchanged - then it will damage the long term prospects of the Royal Mail. Is this class conflict, a dispute about strategic options, a question of who manages or simply another industrial dispute in an area and cultural relic of the archaic nationalised industry mindset. As an observer it looks like the latter to me. Good to read a post from you to me that didn't contain an insult - thanks.

Staying till I've travelled by tube to the 2012 Olympics. Then heading for somewhere with a view of the sea and a good train service back to London.

Gallinello: Which Side Are You On? was commissioned for transmission as part of the South Bank Show but was not shown because of its "highly partial view on a controversial subject". London Weekend Television, the commissioning company, felt that it was more of a political film than an arts film. Loach's brief was to make a programme that showed what the striking miners were writing and singing. He felt that this was what he delivered and was angered that the programme was banned on the basis that it overstepped official guidelines on political impartiality. Loach has always felt that no documentary can ever be neutral or 'balanced' (and nor can the news) and he acknowledges that he made the film entirely from the miners' point of view. Gallinello - the above came from a film review site. I don't feel the need to address every point every time I comment on a post - however, I'll give it a go this time. Para 1: You use the term "brutal class conflict" - what evidence do you have for this? I would suggest it was an industrial dispute, albeit one that government had prepared for and the miner's union hadn't. I'll grant you that there was brutality - but on both sides and where it happened neither party comes comes out well. Documentary evidence - where is that - Ken Loach the director admits that his film was not / is not a balanced piece of history. I'll grant you also that yesterday's history informs today - but a simplistic and partisan description of events is not history. My position is that events, industry, industrial relations, social relations, political activity and theory have all moved on significantly since 1984. Re-engaging in old discussions about past difference does not take today's debate forward. Para 2: Ken Loach made his film to portray another side of the dispute. It doesn't make it any more accurate or truthful, just a different perspective. Taking on the final para in your most recent post: How does referring to history "Pre 1948 there was, contrary to popular belief, a pretty decent healthcare system. Consultants worked for free in charitable hospitals, employers ran 1p week subscription clubs to also subsidise healthcare etc." demonstrate that I haven't moved my political position? A little research into social history will reveal that what I said in the lines you quote is true - the health system pre 1948 wasn't perfect, but it existed and helped the majority of people through a network of community, charitable and municipally funded hospitals, clinics, district nurses and GP practices, individuals received financial support where necessary from Saturday Clubs and other health funds managed by trades unions. Today's health system isn't perfect either and there are many criticisms that can be rightly levelled at todays NHS. The pre 1948 system worked and and relied upon self belief, responsibility, self help, community spirit and philanthropy. All traits I applaud. I have worked in the NHS and still work in the healthcare sector. When I joined the NHS I took onboard the "group think" and supported the prevailing view that it was the finest health system and the envy of the world. After a few years knocking about the world and experiencing different health systems I am able to challenge that group think. I agree I'm a libertarian - but not an unthinking one. I have voted for the Conservatives and will probably do so again. I have campaigned for the Liberals in the past and have also deliberately witheld my vote - I did not vote for the Heath adminsitrations in the 70's. Does this admission make me evil? Or not worth listening to? Or not worth engaging in debate with?

No we don't know each other. However, by posting your views you put them up for question. I met and argued with many holding the views you profess back in the 70's and into the 80's. Your views appear to be unchanged, while the political dialogue has moved on. NOTE: Both in my first post and this I used the words "it makes me feel" and "appear" - these are my opinion - I'm not stating them as fact but as a debating point.

Woof - Stella & Paul McCartney plus assorted veggies wants us all to eat less meat to save the planet as well. All those cows farting methane are bad news apparently. Enjoy your steak pie while you can.

It's a scam introduced by this government that gives more buying power to sitting MPs. ?10,000 a year for them to use to communicate with their constituents about what a good job they're doing a an MP. A typical Brown dodge that hurts the opposition parties (since they have less MPs drawing the allowance) and strengthens the government party. Similarly, Brown's proposal to publish the earnings from any second jobs (regardless of whether it impinges on their parliamentary duties) and make all MPs account for the time spent on such second jobs. He really wants to outlaw all such "outside interests" - again as he sees it as a dividing line between Labour and the Tories. The likely impact is to promote even further the professional politician who has little experience or knowledge of life outside Westminster. You'll also see sitting MPs using their "staff" allowance to employ people working in the local party association - mainly for "made up[" type jobs that leaves them free to campaign full time for the local party. As someone supporting a PPC against an incumbent MP it seems unfair - we have to raise every penny we spend thru' coffee mornings, book sales, quiz nights, from our own pocket and from any donors we can interest (not many in the Camberwell & Peckham area - and getting fewer since revelations about expenses). I don't mind that we are funding our own campaigning - but I do object to the fact that taxpayers are funding the opponent - Harriet Harman.

The title of this thread is itself a statement of intent. Why should the population of this country be divided into sides? I would suggest that the majority of the UK population seeks nothing more than a quiet and pleasant life with sufficient material and cultural assets to provide for themselves, their family, their entertainment and their aspirations. Different political parties offer different routes to this nirvana - and the rational among us pick and choose from the political menu to select a preferred government. Reducing politics to a tribal battle between "them" and "us" is divisive and potentially as explosive as the racism rightly deplored in other threads. That extract doesn't ring out as an objective and balanced view of the 1984 Miners strike - it seems to me that this "committed piece of political cinema" is aimed at portraying a one sided polemic. I'm sure the Government planned for a possible miners strike - 9 years before such a strike had almost brought down a moribund government with an outdated policy, damaged the economy and initiated a general election on the question of "who governs". It would have been irresponsible not to have a contingency plan. Equally I'm sure the leaders of the miners unions had similar considered this - and presumably put in place their own contingency plans. Gallinello is I'm sure still a committed political activist - I'm a committed political participant too. Good luck to us both. However, replaying the "Thatcher Years" after 25 years and casting them as solely a period of brutal class war is not only incorrect but is also hardly relevant to today's issues. It makes me feel that Gallinello hasn't progressed in his / her political thinking and philosophy over the last 25 years.

Good to hear from other fans. Sean McG is one too.

It was also somewhat sickening to hear Martin McGuiness decrying the terrorising of the Romanians by the locals. Given his history as an active terrorist and then an apologist for terrorism this was the height of hypocrosy.

I really don't understand you. I voted Tory. I'm certainly not embarrassed that I did. Why do you think I should be?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It sounds like you actually admire the US > healthcare system! No I admire the philanthropy that is an inescapable part of US life. Everything from people bringing food to neighbours in trouble (happened to an old (British) friend of mine where the local church organised a rota to feed his wife and family while he was in hospital with life threatening diseaase. He wasn't a church goer at all - this was just an expression of community charity) to great hospitality to travellers (I was invited with six friends to a Thanksgiving Dinner simply because I was a vaguely known to a friend of a friend and had just arrived in the area) to the massive gestures of charity from the likes of Gates & Buffet. Having worked with the US healthcare system in New York, Virginia and Texas I would not describe it as inefficient - certainly not when compared with the NHS. One aspect of US healthcare I do admire is the degree to which clinicians are in charge of their departments, the degree to which they understand the financial imperatives of their world and the relatively small managerial class in their hospitals.