Marmora Man

Tories do it right Labour does it to the working class Lib Dems do it locally Divers do it underwater Skydivers do it in the air Try anything once - except Morris Dancing and Incest

Done - and I'm starting a viral campaign via my e-mail address book to do the same. WE should be able to beat the 256 complaints that the Atheist ads led to.

For an authoritative position on poverty and the current situation reading the following link is interesting. CSJ Report One of the most serious points (page 7 of the report) is that current government policies have moved funds & benefits from the very (severe poverty) poor to those on the border line of the defining income median. Thus by moving a large number of people from just below the 60% of median earnings line to just over it the government can claim to have lifted many "out of poverty". However, this has been achieved at the expense of those so far down the scale as to be impossible to "lift out of poverty" with little, if any, additional cost to government - making the government rhetoric empty and hypocritical.

ThinLIzzy - glad you enjoyed my veggie meal. I'm really an omnivore - will eat / cook pretty much anything. For carnivores - tonight's supper. Roast duck breast with crispy skin. Ratatouille with cheese crust, spinach, tiny new boiled potatoes. Cheese to follow (including a delicious aged Red Leicester). Bottle of Zinfandel to wash it all down.

Vegetarian Pancake stack: Cook several pancakes. Roast various vegetables, Fry off some onions. Fry off some mushrooms. Make a strong cheese sauce (if you have some blue cheese - yum yum). Layer pancakes and cooked vegetables alternately until you run out of veg / pancakes. Pour over cheese sauce - eat with large glass of gluggable red wine in front of fire.

In response to DGB: Labour have failed the poorest people in this nation - they use spin to try and cover this up:- Some quotes from New Labour:- "One million children lifted out of poverty" Labour party manifesto 2001 page 29 "We have lifted one million children.....out of poverty" Gordon Brown, 27 September 2004 "We have lifted over 2 million children......... out of abject poverty" David Blunkett, October 2005 The facts Since 1998/99 there are 700,000 fewer children in poverty" DWP press release 17 October 2006 This was mostly due to the general rise in income levels during the decade from '97 to '06 rather than any specific action by the Labour Government since the preferred definition of poverty is that portion of households that live on less than half the median income. Everyone benefits from a rising tide. When Labour politicians talk about their record on poverty they are spinning you a line. Check it out for yourself. Severe poverty has got worse after 12 years of Labour, don't believe Harriet Harman when she says that she is going to sort it out in one year before an election. * severe poverty = households on the lowest decile of income + absence of one parent + child deprivation (some / all of the following: poor schooling / clothing / feeding / care / abuse)

Slumdog is the easiest film of the list. Mostly feelgood and funny - highly improbable, it has a great opening shot. Grand Tourino a must for any Clint fans - haven't seen it yet but will. Looks as if Dirty Harry has retired but retained same basic outlook on life. Frost / Nixon - good but it's creepy as to how much Michael Sheen, as Frost the shallow, vain, self serving, non intellectual individual tends to become Tony Blair - may be the coincidence of casting or deliberate, Milk - is definitely worth seeing. He's just not onto you - not seen it but reviews are poor. Revolutionary Road - I'm off to see this tomorrow. Benjamin Button - again on my list to see. REviews seem split - some applauding the technical skills and range of the story, few applauding Brad Pitt or the other actors (except Tilda Swanton) On the whole if this is a one off outing and you want a sure fire fun night at the cinema - Slumdog is the film.

Harriet H is part of a government that was elected to help the socially excluded, the poor and the marginalised. At least that was the rhetoric. After 12 years in power she has just seen the light? I would argue that the socially excluded, poor and marginalised of British society are worse off now than they were in 1997 when the Blessed Blair entered 10 Downing St to the psuedo applause of a manufactured crowd.

Religion Fights Back While I would never recommend the Daily Mail as a source - I heard this news on the radio and this was the only item that came up in a web search. However, to match the ASA ruling for Atheist groups - shouldn't the Christian slogan read "There is probably a God" since, by definition neither atheists nor those that believe in a god / God can prove their case? edited to correct typo SAS to ASA!

THis is surely another political pressure group. I have no problem with that - I'm a member of a couple of such groups myself. However, the manifesto: * lay the foundations for a diverse economy, less dependent on the demands of the financial sector * invest in green industries and energy production, as well as the skills needed for them to flourish * recognise that extreme inequalities between the very richest and the rest are socially unsustainable * commit to a fairer society, in which social enterprise and initiative are not stifled by lack of time and resources reads like a student Socialist Worker agenda - not an apolitical organisation of concerned citizens. As a matter of principle if George Monbiot supports something I will start from a position of opposition and look carefully before leaping.

There is / was an American economist who suggested during the last recession that the best way forward was to scatter $100 bills from a helicopter to the general public rather than have government try to pick where best to target the publics money. Sounds as rational as many of the current schemes - or perhaps more so.

The idea that people staying at home on Monday cost the economy billions is a fallacy. Their actions may have deferred some real money spending but that spending didn't disappear. I bought no milk on Monday, nor did I go out with my wife to buy a new bed as we planned. However, I bought milk on Tuesday and we'll look for the new bed at the weekend - both spending deferred. In the wider economy contracts may not have been signed on Monday but they will be signed, new employees may not have been interviewed on Monday but they will be interviewed. If you like he British economic train, which is admittedly struggling at present, stopped for a day due the the wrong kind of snow but the journey was resumed on Tuesday with the destination and route unchanged. It was certain service sectors and their clients that suffered on Monday (tho' not, particularly, in a financial sense - EG hospitals where night staff stayed on during the day, care workers who were unable to reach their clients. Taking on a point from a different thread - occasionally not working is good for the soul. The overall rise in bonhomie and goodwill generated by the shared experience of playing in the snow may have a positive effect on many outweighing any real or fallacious financial loss.

The head of the HSE was saying much the same on the radio last week. However, she also said that the number of litigation cases of "the public" suing councils / schools/ public bodies over perceived safety issues are, in fact, very few. I'd agree that some insurance companies take a ridiculously avoid all possible risk stance. Within the health service (something I do know about) some TRusts have taken to defending all claims for slips & trips - where previously they would pay a "no fault" compensation to avoid the costs of defending silly claims. The new policy saved money in the end as the number of claims fell. So, to summarise, everyone in authority and the general public should have the balls to allow individuals to take risks and expect individuals to take personal responsibility for their decisions about personal risk. Don't cut down trees in case a conker falls, close parks in case someone slips over, ban snowball fights in case someone gets hurt etc etc.

A private health model would be misappropriated. Companies like Bupa predicate their business model on only providing for customers who don't get ill (healthy wealthy business types) and on a competitor NHS. Without an NHS private premiums would soar, and the old and infirm would be unable to find cover for their ailments. A monopoly coupled with compulsory enrolment would see charges to the government soar well beyond current NHS fees. True at present - but with a state health insurance it is possible to have relatively low premiums. Current BUPA comprehensive health insurance costs approx ?1500 per person. Coincidentally NHS is spending approximately ?1500 per head of UK population. (Circa ?90 Billion versus population of 60 million. Plus there should be efficiency gains - private health typically spends a significantly lower % on administration than the NHS This Peter chap seems like the voice of reason! Not to me!

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MamoraMan - I do not agree that your example of > the NHS IT system is evidence of the > inefficiencies of a nationalised health care > system. If anything it is yet another example of > the complete inability of the private sector (who > have been contracted to install and run the > system) to complete such projects on time and on > budget. Fujitsu and Accenture have been > responsible for cost over-runs and time delays and > yet these are the same private companies that you > would happily hand over our health service to. I'd agree the projects are to be delivered by private sector but they are managed / run by the public sector and the resulting cost and time overruns are the result of: a. Poor specification in the first place by the public sector b. Overarching ambition in wanting to have everyone in UK on the database c. Many subsequent changes of course / direction and specification > And I'm also in agreement with SeanMcG > (unsurprisingly) in his astute assessment of the > benefits of a maximum working week. Whilst > sacrificing some productivity the resultant social > benefits are equally cost saving. Without sounding > mawkish, families able to sit together of an > evening an be "a family" because Mum and Dad > haven't passed out from working a 60 hour week; > parents with time and energy to cook fresh meals > for their children rather than merely order > take-aways; and the health benefits this ensures - > these are just two examples of the many benefits. > Travailler moins, produire plus. Nobody in the country is legally obliged to work longer than 37.5 hours a week. PLenty choose to do just that. Equally many others choose to work longer hours for overtime, higher base salaries, ambition to be promoted or simply because they enjoy the work. Restricting everyone, regardless, to a 35 hour week is just ridiculous. How many hours do you work a week and why? How many hours does Sean McG work and why? I personally work between 50 - 60 hours for a salary with no overtime. I enjoy the work, believe I am making a positive contribution to the company that employs me. The rewards allow me to live in a pleasant house, take good holidays and ea well. My family see me every day - and I usually manage to cook 3 evening meals for them a week. If I was unable to work for longer than 35 hours I would feel deprived.

Popped in at 12.30 with Mrs MM and Junior MM - two excellent Lancashire Hotpots + 1 good, rare cooked, burger. I thought they were coping very well with the unexpected influx of custom. Staff obviously busy but friendly and helpful. One table with several "juniors" seemed to be enjoying the enforced holiday. A walk back thru' the park to look at various snowmen ended a good lunchtime outing.

Perhaps the biggest?

Just arrived back from a short break involving flights to / from Gatwick. It was cheaper to drive there, park with a "meet & greet" parking agency (at ?40.00 for 4 days) than to get taxi there / back. The "greeter" meets you at entrance to departures and brings car back to exit from arrivals - so minimal hassle.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The nation state has three core responsibilities: > > (1) Protection from foreign enemies > > (2) Ensuring a sound currency > > (3) Maintaining law and order. > > The rest is politics. Far more succinct, and telling, than my ramble.

It could be done - but there is a half way house. Pay for healthcare thru' taxation but provide it by private providers, let state (NHS) hospitals, physios, nurses, doctors, GPs etc etc free of government bureaucracy. If you think Dulwich Doll's red tape was excessive you should try the NHS version. So the state becomes another health insurer - like BUPA, Norwich Union and many others, and if an individual chooses BUPA they wouldn't need to pay the "health" element of government taxes - in this way the government is encouraged to become more efficient in its administration of the funds and fully private insurers would have an incentive to drive their premiums down toward government levels (or vice versa).

And your problem is? If an individual chooses to spend their money on a holiday rather than medicine - let them. BUT - it must be their money and not money given back to them by the state. So don't tax them for medicines in the first place.

To answer Sean McG: We've had this online debate before but all the above looks like excessive, government inspired, red tape and bureaucracy. How much of any of the above has benefited Dulwich Doll, his customers or the wider community? Are red fire extinguishers more efficient at putting out fires? But to take your point about where on the planet is the low tax, small government model - answer I don't know. However, I have no problem with being a first mover - why should we follow others? The Gallic model that I see has been praised on this thread - try living in it when on the wrong end of strikes or with employees restricted to a 35 hour week. French businessmen I know loathe the even greater and excessive costs impose by their gov't. I hold the following to be a self evident truth: An individual can, for 90% of all purchases, spend a ? more efficiently that the government can. When the government spends our money it has transaction costs of: a. Collecting it b. Administering it c. Agreeing what to buy d. Negotiating detailed contracts It has been estimated that a government ? has up to 35p in additional costs. This is a drag on efficiency. There are certain absolutes that only government can provide - but I believe that these are far fewer than we currently accept and that, in any case, we should automatically challenge all government expansion and spending. Taking a couple of today's stories - NHS IT system - original budget ?2.7 billion with a timeline to be implemented by 2008. Current estimate ?12 billion (and counting) - timeline 2015 (perhaps). This a project that was conceived over a coffee on T Blair's sofa in 30 minutes. Or the Children's database, another government inspired IT Project that will give 400,000 "professionals" (plus hackers) access to key details of every child in UK under the age of 18 (the only saving grace is that it probably won't work, or be accurate enough). Less costly tho' I believe this is around ?2.5 billion (not sure about overruns - but there'll be some) Or the VAT cut - reducing the cost of VAT goods by 2.1p in the pound - a % rapidly overtaken by the price slashes in pre CHristmas sales but which imposed huge on companies having to reprice and account for the stupid and ineffective headline grabbing soundbite change. I'll allow that my "strong defence" slogan is part of my psyche and what I should really learn to say is "defence forces appropriate to the task in hand".

I noticed it's showing at the Texas Embassy CAntina off Trafalgar Sq - not exactly local but the No. 12 bus from Dulwich Library runs past it.

None - there are no angels. Stop worrying and get on with your life.

DD - you have described very thoroughly the excesses of big government - which has long been Labour's and New Labour's failing. I have long championed small government (ie minimal interference and red tape), low taxes (so the average man / woman can choose how to spend their money rather than the government) and strong defence (so we can protect Britain's interests when they are threatened). This current government, and even more so Brown's version of it, is the compete antithesis of my desires. We must vote them out at the earliest opportunity.