Marmora Man

James - you're pandering to prejudice, and an old and tired prejudice at that. You clearly haven't met the Conservative voters and supporters I have ? I met a number recently on the estates ? Denmark Hill Estate & Pelican Estate when canvassing with colleagues who had not a pin stripe to share between them. For example there?s Alice, who founded and runs ?Women Of Africa? a charity based in Camberwell, she works to empower African parents to integrate better by understanding UK social, health and education systems. There?s Janet and her husband ? from Sierra Leone they campaigned for the Tories in recent elections, Oliver ? a Council employee and shop steward for his branch of Unison, Andy ? committed Christian and Community Development Officer working on a rough ?social housing? estate in South London, Marjorie ? former chair of CND and PR Officer for CRE and others - all members of the Conservative Party. We're open to all - we don't represent any particular slice of society and we're not stereotypes ? just politically aware and concerned.

I was tempted - but refrained. I stick to my first post - I'm not engaging in this discussion - too much belief, too little rational discussion.

WE've been here before Thatcher Debate

I suppose that's to stop us being screwed by the public sector?

TLS - why should a street market be funded by the council? Surely if it's providing a service (ie "is loved") it will thrive.

Beware of what you ask for. The Royal Family might ask for the return of the Crown Estates and their related income. 250 years ago the King agreed with the Government to hand over the Crown Estate. The estate would be managed on behalf of the Government, surplus revenue would go to the Treasury - the King received in return a fixed annual payment - the Civil List. I understand the difference between the Civil List income for the Treasury and the Civil List paid out by the Treasury is massively to the advantage of the Treasury. And BTW - try my thread NHS Bureaucracy versus NHS Cuts for suggestions there.

I have always held to the theory that once a debate moves from rational argument to insult it's time to leave the room. Goodbye!

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Hugenot said: Marmora Man has already said on another thread that nothing could persuade him to change his mind on the subject of climate change, which rather demonstrates his position to be an ideological one rather than educated. What I said was: Two further points on a thread I said I wouldn't add to - but have been provoked to: 1. Science holds there are no facts - only hypotheses - which can be tested and, perhaps, ultimately disproved but never proved. For example it is a hypothesis that the sun will always rise in the West. To date observation suggest this is likely to be true - but it will take just one counter observation to disprove it. Thus - Climate Change is also a hypothesis, some observations may indicate it has some merit but there are plenty of other counter observations to indicate the the hypothesis may not be useful (ie explain the observations) or that it needs further thought, development and refinement. Climate Change is not a single coherent proposition in the way that Newton's Laws of Motion or Einstein's Theory of Relativity are. The former held sway for nearly 250 years until the latter was able to disprove it (or rather modify it to take into account new findings and thinking) as an absolute and true explanation of motion. This lack of coherence in the Climate Change model makes it both hard to disprove (because it is so "flexible") and hard to assemble comprehensive data to support the idea. 2. The statement " it's notable that the only people who don't believe in man made climate change are demonstrably NOT the experts. " is a little over the top. The vast majority of supporters are also not experts - in fact many many of them seem to have little understanding of science, scientific research and development. They appear to have latched on to Climate Change as a suitable "progressive" policy that can engage woolly left of centre ideologists across the spectrum from "Swampy" types against building of new roads and taking in anti nuclear protesters, hunt protesters, anti capitalists, anti globalisationists and similar single issue protesters.

I voted. I voted Tory. Anyone surprised?

The extract below is from a report on just one area of NHS management. (Note that it excludes Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts - of which there are very many and which are, at least, just as demanding of audits, inspections and data). It's mindboggling and so many clinicians are involved in the unnecessary duplication of queries and answers that it makes the job they joined for - caring for patients - so much more difficult. Given yesterday's debate in Parliament arising from Andrew Lansley's comments about protecting the NHS and cutting elsewhere and Gordon Brown's cynical and disingenuous statements about Labour investment versus Tory cuts this is a very relevant glimpse of what 12 years of Labour "investment" has achieved. A deep cut in this aspect of NHS costs would go a long way to ensuring that it was both more fit for purpose and required fewer increase in funding over next 5 years.

HellNoHellYeah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maromora, when you say Babura is not to everyone's > taste...what do you mean? Some people have said that meat is overcooked or too salty (see reviews on website I set up). However, last time I was there I had rabbit - the meats had been wrapped around each other with delicately spiced layers and just delicious, similarly a truly authentic chicken biryani was a revelation and surpassed every previous such dish I had ever tasted. Service, particularly drinks service, can be slow - but the decor and general friendliness makes up for this. Also add that Ganapati is excellent - and at a lower cost. Decor more "rough & ready" but absolutely charming with good food.

Bicycle - awful. AS a somewhat pricey alternative to restaruants listed above (I would also endorse Omrith) try Babur in BRockley Rise - not to everyone's taste but I have always found it to be excellent.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps we could get the Beeb to get him over here > on expenses to provide interesting programming, > simultaneously proving both he and Allfornun right > in ine fell swoop. Do you think Auntie would be > interested in a series of home spun mini Question > Times? Worth a punt - all about engaging with the communities. Isn't there something like that in the BBC Charter?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hugenot? We've enough for a series Can we afford his travel expenses?

The eating of a deep fried amputated penis shown in the last episode of Ashes to Ashes would be hard to swallow!

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could have been worse, could have been a rat. I've been told that in Devon & Cornwall "real" cider (aka scrumpy) has a dead rat in the fermentation to ensure it works well.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > What, no Mockney Piers? quite right - my mistake

Naaah! The Constitunional Club is so depressing! Besides - I'm more of a writer than a debater. I wasn't putting myself up for public debate.

Now we're getting onto sensible subjects: 10 ways to get out - but there're 50 ways to leave your lover! Caught Bowled Leg before wicket Run out Stumped Hit wicket Handled the ball Hit the ball twice Obstructing the field Timed out

Is there scope to alter one of the EDF drinks session to have a mini Question Time for the first 60 minutes? I don't think we'd get David Dimbleby to chair it but with Sean McG, David Carnell, TLS, ????, Moos, RosieH, PeckhamGateCrasher and Peckham Rose around we'd have a pretty wide range of views on a panel. Recent threads over BNP, chalking, the EU, the credit crunch have all been interesting but .... difficult to follow as the threaders cross each other and the debating points sometimes become wilder. PS: There might have to be a "no fisticuffs & leave all weapons at the door" policy.

D-C just where is all that good news in these two papers? Just because they wear their left wing credentials on their sleeve doesn't exempt them from the imperatives of newspaper publishing (tho' the usually massive government / public sector spend on advertising in the Guardian may give them, slightly, greater freedom). I'd agree that for many many people life is pretty good and that for almost everyone life today is far better than it was 25 years ago in terms of wealth, security and access to services. Nevertheless there are problems - and this government cannot avoid responsibility for many of them. PS: truce over!!

Good to see the joke thread resurrected. It's been dormant for more than two weeks. No one feels like joking?

I recognise the sentiment Sean but I think it arises more from an almost directionless anger - there's no doubt that the political system has let a lot of people down, nor that given the state of the economy that there's little that any government (left / right / centre) can do to alleviate immediate and future pains. Tho' I note the NHS have started their shroud waving early! Therefore many are simply striking out at the nearest available target - a bit like punching the wall in anger. The target varies (and has done over last 9 months) bankers, politicians, immigrants, the media, GB himself, and so on. As at heart both an optimist and a believer in the innate goodness of the majority I do believe that the flirtation with the BNP will pass - it was, in any case, a perverse result of the EU electoral system rather than any significant growth in their support base. For me, given my political slant, I believe the failure of big government was inevitable and the "rightward" slant in the EU elections (excluding BNP type elements) is the beginnings of a change of heart. (perhaps that's also optimistic?)

D-C and I are usually on opposite sides of the political debate - but on this we are one. The only way to confront the BNP is through rational debate and the provision of alternative policies. The former to discredit their obnoxious theories, the latter to attract potential BNP recruits to more mainstream politics. I certainly like the idea of prosecuting the BNP under current UK & EU Law for discrimination - it has a certain elegance. I would also comment that the protest, yesterday, against Nigel Griffin was, to my mind, counter-productive, making BNP opponents appear to be mindless protesters with no decent argument.

The Califorian solution is the best and allows the oceans to be farmed instead of hunted. It's rather like the rotation of crops concept - the conservancy areas can change and be moved but as long as the fishing industry respects them the fish stocks can grow to maturity, spawn new stock and allow the population to grow. It has been trialed around Lundy Island - but doesn't seem to have any EU support which appears to be in hock to the fishing industry and is itself adding to the problem by allowing fishing for one kind of fish and insisting on all other species of fish to be thrown back into the sea - dead! So it allows them to be killed but not sold. If fishing areas were restricted - but unlimited fishing for all species allowed in the unrestricted areas - fishermen could earn a living, we could eat fish and stocks would be protected. In the 17th & 18th century cod on the Banks off Novia Scotia were as long as a man - nowadays you'd be hard pressed to find a cod even a quarter that size.