Marmora Man

Keef, Too many people go to university these days. I was lucky and came up thru' the Grammar / Technical / Secondary Modern school system where anyone from any strata of society** could get to a good school and on to university if he / she was bright enuf. By the time I was at university about 12% of all 19 - 21 year olds went. This system nurtured many of today's politicians and leaders of industry / commerce who were not all from a privileged elite. There was greater social mobility then than now. With fewer at University the available funding can be provided at no cost to the student. It's only the pointless expansion to a target of 50% (plucked from the air) that has meant the end of student grants that earlier generations were fortunate enuf to receive. ** Yes I know the system wasn't perfect and some chose not to go to The Grammar" because of the cost of uniform or the need to contribute to family incomes - but the Crossman led campaign against grammar schools targeted the wrong end of the problem - it wasn't that the grammar schools were creaming off the best but that the secondary modern schools were failing the less academic.

Glad B&B will continue - and BTW the bottles of "Old Garden" I bought last weekend at G&B were just superb and much appreciated by friends over dinner

The government must cut spending now and into the future. If an individual were made redundant tomorrow they would review their spending and adjust outgoings. Businesses that see their revenues fall cut costs. Neither, unless very foolish, would increase spending and cover the shortfall with borrowing. Why should government be any different? Propose: 1. Pensions 106.7/0 (106.7). No change as it's current spending - but reduce public sector pension schemes in the future. Where based upon 60th's (ie 60th of final salary for every year worked) base them on 80ths. Over time this will reduce the cost of public sector pensions. 2. Health Care 110.8/0.4 (111.2). Freeze all growth for 5 years. The NHS has seen real increases for 12 years. It is time for it to work more efficiently. I work in this sector and assure you frontline services could e delivered more effectively if there were less managers, less meetings, less committees, less working groups, less reviews, less diversity awareness training - and I could go on. Over 5 years a freeze would save ?11.3bn 3. Education 28.1/52.6 (80.7). Again freeze all growth for 5 years. Saves ?8.25bn 4. Defence 37.4/0.1 (37.5) . As a retired military man I'd like to see more spent on the Armed Forces - mainly because they have see no real growth in spending over the last 10 years but have seen a massive growth in their overseas commitments. However, it is time to trim the commitments to match the budget and reduce the budget. Bail out of Afghanistan or - get the non participating Nato countries to subsidise the costs. So - disband the RAF - merge the Maritime element with the Royal Navy, merge the land element with the Army - make senior RAF officers redundant. Do not replace Trident (?20bn capital and 2.5% of annual budget). Do not buy anymore Tornado aircraft (?45bn capital cost 3% of annual budget to run). Savings - ?65bn over 20 years + 5% of budget annually = ?9.5bn over 5 years. 5. Welfare 51.6/42.6 (94.2). This is a cyclical cost and will rise with unemployment and, one would hope, fall when economy recovers. 6. Protection 15.8/16.8 (32.6). I assume this is police, MI5 & MI6 and similar. Freeze for 5 years. Saves ?3.3bn 7. Transport 10.2/9.7 (19.9). Reduce Train operating company subsidies. ?? Saves ?2bn a year ?? 8. General Government 13.4/13.5 (26.9). This government's advertisng is reported to be costing several hundren million a year. Cease all government advertising. Saves ?1bn a year 9. Other Spending 49.8/34.9 (84.6) . A useful black hole - I wonder what it covers. Reduce by 10% saves ?20bn over 5 years. 10. Interest 30.3/0.8 (31.1) Will only fall as government debt falls. UNless action is taken it will continue to grow. 11. Balance 7.0 0.0 -5.4 1.6no action. I estimate this would save, over 5 years, ?50.6bn + non Defence spending of ?65bn. Which is well on the way to closing the black hole created by this government. It would hurt - but it's better than yesterday's budget which was a fantasy land exercise topped off with political gamesmanship.

Headlines - "taxing the rich" Actuality - "squeezing everyone that buys fuel, booze ad fags + cutting public expenditure by stealth while raising a very small % from those earning over ?100K but it makes for good back bench support to G Brown"

Trafalgar Day - 21st October. A British triumph (Scots, Welsh & Irish + a good sprinkling of other nations were in the Royal Navy ships) beating the combined fleets of johhny foreigner and it comes neatly half way between August Bank Holiday and Christmas Day.

This statement implies there is a heirarchy of middle class people - ranging from the worst kind to, presumably, a better kind with some indifferent types in the middle of the middle class. May we have some clues from Louisa and onthe landing so as to be able to recognise the "right" kind of middle class person?

We bought a bed and three wardrobes from them about 5 years ago - they were very helpful, gave us a discount and helped put the wardrobes up in the right bedrooms.

I always understood that the site would be a new community hospital with the remainder becoming housing of some kind, probably mixture of social housing, private housing and "key worker" housing. Normally would expect the new hospital to arise first, then a move from old into new - with the old being converted to "stylish" flats in the old Victorian building. So you're carne maybe for the new hospital? Tho' would have thought the current housing market would mean the housing element being delayed.

Proper job Somerset Scrumpy 1s 3d a pint when on a scout camp aged 15. Drunk for half a crown, dead drunk for 3s 9p. Served in "stone jar" so you couldn't see the bits floating in it.

I was shopping for honey today and realised that the manuka+ honey that occassionally appears in Marmora Land is up to 6 times as expensive as "ordinary" organic honey. (?10.99 v ?1.79). Why? Is it: 6 x tastier? 6 x better for me? 6 x more packed with nutrition?

I'm a libertarian - the Cato institute is part of my hinterland. Neither of us will convince the other - whether by quoting scientists or other points. Maybe if this forum is still around in 25 years time and I'm not gaga by then we can return with better data to discuss the issue. I remain a sceptic about the climate change thesis - I acknowledge the energy gap problem which I see as a far greater threat to mankind. I therefore support the actions to reduce and ultimately close that energy gap - some of which may also be seen as appropriate if you happen to believe in climate change. Particularly the announcement of 11 nuclear reactor sites for UK - which if all built will give UK a degree of non carbon based energy independence.

IT may hurt your case Hugenot but I'm following this argument with interest and cheering you on all the way. The BBC does represent value for money FULL STOPAs I have said earlier in this thread it could be more efficient, it could be more considered and it could tone down it's statist approach but for all that the world's media and the world's public consumers of media would be poorer for its loss. On the VFM equation perhaps it should be costed as (Total net costs to run) / (Total number of consumers) The divisor across the world will surely run close to a billion, maybe more? Whereas Norwegian broadcasting is seldom seen outside Scandinavia.

99% + of the scientists community accepts thes e three premises: *That climate change is happening *That it is due in the majority to human activity *That the consequences will be disastrous Not so - here are 120 that disagree and are happy to be named: Scientific Community Statement

You cannot deny that he's arguing the case for climate change - he has simply found a new, and simplistically persuasive, way to present the case for massive intervention. I'll return to your other points when I have time.

This video is a shameless polemic not a rational argument. It takes a typical junior MBA style 2 x 2 grid - thereby reducing options from almost an infinity of choices to just 4 - proceeds to load the apocalypse into the lower RH corner, an economic downturn in the top LH corner and then compares, simplistically, the outcomes of the "do something" / "do nothing" schools of thought taking no account of probability. By making a virtue of ignoring the science it debases the debate and rational thought and takes the precautionary principle to a new and truly incredible level.

TLS had it right/ The third Test at Haedingly 1981. I was at sea and we only received a 3 minute news update each day - and that depended on weather and sea conditions. We received a partially garbled message with the news ".... and Willis takes 8 wickets for ......." It wasn't until three weeks later arriving alongside in Gibraltar that I was able to learn the result.`One of my biggest disappointments was not to have seen this match live.

BUMP! This is beginning to unravel. Gordon Brown's history of micromanagement and "dissing" any potential rival for No. 10 seems to be paying him back with a number of prominent Labourites queuing up to give GB a hard time. As a long term opponent of New Labour and Labour I'm enjoying the political fallout of GB's poor recruitment decisions.

Ruffers - just my view that it sends a poor signal to any potential candidate - making the ommpany seem more interested in cost than quality.

LE - in my experience when recruiting I have an idea what I'm prepared to pay rather than trying to penny pinch by just topping the current salary of the successful candidate. If they choose you - you are in the driving seat to negotiate the salary, particularly if both interviews come good and you have two offers. You shouldn't be asked salary at the interview - and if you are it's an unprofessional interview and question. You don't have to lie - simply tell them that you've been in a lowly paid job to gain experience but now you are looking for a professionally appropriate salary.

Louisiana, with no knowledge at all I would assume that the shopping concourse, ticket office and routes to and fro must be open to the public (how else would they buy their tickets?) - tho' it may not fall within the legal definition of a public byway as a company must own the land. There is probably a bye law somewhere that allows the railway / station owner to shut off access for particular reasons. However, for police to be asking to see your ticket just because you are at a station seems extreme - and only just short of asking a person to identify themselves on the street when there is no suspicion of an offence having been committed - which is not allowed. I'm sure you would have been within your rights to not to have shown a ticket / given any identity - tho' the hassle factor would probably have been high. You might consider bring it to your MP's notice and seeking clarification that way. I would certainly recommend following it up in some fashion. Only by vigilance can we maintain the liberty of individuals in a surveillance society.

The right of centre think tank "Centre for Social Justice" has some ideas on gangs and gang crime - none would provide a quick fix but many are sensible and achievable if politicians think long term. Centre for Social Justice Dying to Belong

Antijen, 1. I support the right to protest. 2. Some protests have violent / anti social or otherwise illegal elements. 3. It is proper that the authorities police protests - to control any violent / anti social / otherwise illegal activity. 4. Such control should be without violence but, if action is required then minimal force should be used. 5. Kettling was developed to be, and is, a less violent form of control than baton charges, mounted police and snatch squads. 5. Therefore protesting against kettling is illogical - unless you suggest a viable alternative that provides the necessary controls. 6. Police are able to make individual decisions and encouraged to do so - but as a disciplined force will usually act as if controlled by a single mind for most effective impact in certain situations. Individual police remain responsible for their actions - the "I was only following orders" defence was discredited at Nuremberg.

What does the EDF think about the current furore regarding Gordon Brown's media advisor, McBride, along with Derek Draper and their planned blog based smear campaign against the Tories? Are the political bloggers just talking to the "Westminster Village" and political obsessives or is this a deeper and more significant development in political campaigning? For the record I feel that blogging does have a place in the political spectrum - but more as one man / small group lobby groups proposing new ideas, policies and thinking for consideration. Gossip is inevitable part of the "noise" on such websites but for McBride to actively create the prurient tittle tattle as a political campaign was not only completely improper (I'm sure our Admin wouldn't have allowed such stuff thru' the EDF filter) but politically naive.

Antijen - I don't understand your argument. Obviously you dislike kettling - but are you against all policing of protests and demonstrations - or merely anti authority?

Any newspaper every day. Invariably includes The Times, The Telegraph and the Evening Standard. Will often encompass The Guardian and the Independent. Maybe once a month I'll see the Sun and glance at The Mail - mostly to remind myself why I usually stick with the broadsheets. Metro / London Lite are only read in extremis when I have absolutely nothing else to read (including the back of my bus / rail ticket). On rainy Sunday's over a long brunch a good day would include selective reading of Sunday TImes, Sunday Telegraph and Observer + a scandal rag or two (NOW or People) .