DJKillaQueen

The country sees this coalition as the best shot. If it were to vote again they would probably re-elect the tories Complete assumption by yourself based on nothing. In fact the last opinion polls show the Labour vote up, Tories and LibDems down. And give it another 12 months when the cuts start to come into effect and bite and the picture will change again.

I have made valid points and asked polite questions, which seem to never be answered. I ask again where do you think cuts or savings CAN be made. The repeated vague rhetoric of 'any cut is bad' is tedious. And it's not about contentment, it's about making sure that tax payers money isn't wasted where it's not needed...I'm asking you for data that shows the fire service can NOT bear any cut (to engines or whatever). I would ask the same of LFB that it CAN be cut (because I genuinely do not know if we have too many fire engines compared to need). But I am no more likely to take your word for it than managements without some hard evidence. You are providing NO evidence of anything....just getting shirty with anyone that doesn't fully support your view, which is based on vague claims I'm afraid. I understand why ffs feel so strongly...it's their jobs possibly on the line...but we have to be realistic. Cuts have to be made everywhere. It's for ffs to demonstrate that savings can be made without the loss of engines or jobs, or that indeed London needs every engine and ff it has, as much as it is up to LFB to prove the opposite. Then I can make an informed view.

The Police have stated that many people think vehicels are actually travelling much faster than they actually are. That is a point I have made many times and very useful to see the results of a police speed check.

The only result that damage will get is a return to heavy policing of future demonstrations.....and we all remember what happened to that innocent man caught up at the G20.

That the FFs have no grasp of the reality of the consequences of the government's spending review..... If there is going to be a settlement of any dispute there will have to be some measure of compromise on both sides.

But would it mean fully elected Tories? Many of the LibDem votes came from previous Labour voters. I think the estimated floating vote is only 300,000 across the country, and they by and large are who decide the outcome of elections. If those voters were to swing back to Labour (very likely at the next council and general elections) then the outcome would be different. Having said that the Labour party took too long to elect a new leader and they need to get their act together. Miliband has yet to emerge as a full on shadow leader. Meanwhile the Coalition declare controversial policy after controversial policy without any kind of strong opposition making a dent.

I think the silence on where cuts could be made (or money saved) if required, is deafening.

But the Nunhead Forum isn't very comprehensive or well visited. EDF is perhaps the victim of it's own success.

I live on Peckham Rye, and that is technically Nunhead which borders East Dulwich. I understand the reasons for inconsistency but it can also be understand why those that are affected sometimes get upset by that inconsistency.

I would agree that he has put his own career before that of the party. If you look at his CV, most of his political experience is in Europe, where there is no accountability to constituents. Nick is a career politician in the purest form. He becomes leader within TWO years of his first parliamentary seat and finds himself deputy Prime Minister with FIVE years. This is not a man who is born and bred through constituent politics (like most of his party). And because of that he fails to understand the importance of the electorate. His failure to fight for the grant to Sheffield Forgemasters when his seat is IN Sheffield was a gross error of judgement that I'm afraid may cost him personally dearly at the next general election.

I agree with you both as well....especially the point that giving them power has exposed them to be just like the rest.

There's a degree course in golf course management?

There is no reason why there could not have been a cross party leadership. Coalitions only serve to give unpopular inbalances of power, where a good part of the electorate feel unrepresented. It is nonsense to suggest hung parliaments are unworkable. They just have to compromise more that's all.

if authorities have been lobbied about a dangerous junction and there was a subsequent death, if this could be used to pursue the authorities for corporate manslaughter or gross negligence? In a word...no. Drivers are the cause of accidents not roads.

Good for you. Motorcyclists are taught something called defensive riding. It's something many cyclists automatically do. I personally am fed up of drivers who complain because driving requires they pay FULL attention to what is going on around them. In 15 years as a driver myself I have never come even close to hitting a cyclist and yes that includes those that break the rules.

Headcam as in I can film the morons that makes cyclists lives a misery every day?

No offence intended CCat...we've had so many cycle bashing threads. Please don't be put of starting threads. The forum is for everyone.

It is strange that some politicians in the last and this government had grants in there day to get them through there education but will deny others the same. Totally agree and I benefitted from the same full grant system, however many of them DIDN'T get grants as their parents were too wealthy.....which might explain why that arguement falls on deaf ears.

YES...they are in the gutter for a while thanks to their leader who has only five years experience in constituency politics and was chief of staff to the Tory Leon Britten when he was european commissioner (go figure). They were doomed from the moment they picked this Tory masquerading as a LibDem as leader.

No...all road users need to be aware of all road users.....and who cares about pedestrians? >:D

Yeah the controlled scowls by Cheryl are definitely worth watching for!

Sigh...not another cycle bashing thread...please....have some inagination people.... Good and bad in ALL users of road transport...FACT...get over it.

You might be right Iain. And of course there are very good reasons why some 'surplus' cover exists, because on the rare occasions that there are major incidents, like the fire at Kings Cross, or 7/11, those engines and ffs are needed. My view is an open one on potential cuts to engines and their impact.

The engines haven't been cut. Read my previous post moflo...it's pretty rational. Coleman had posed the question, and I would agree that is not the way to do things. I still would like a ffs view on if savings have to be made, where can they be made? Cuts were part of the spending review. The question is can they be made without cutting fire cover and jobs? Coleman seems to now want to argue that London doesn't need all of the fire engines it has. He might be right but I would like to see him qualify that view with data. Similarly the ffs are going to say they need every fire engine they currently have. They might be right but I would like them to qualify that with data also. I don't accept that the FFU used a disagreement on shift changes to actually protest about cuts. Cuts would always be opposed by any union as details emerge. There are no details of cuts at present because there are no proposals, only a view held by Coleman that he has suggested be looked at.

Kbabe gets the 16% from the 27 fire engines that haven't as yet been returned to fire stations. 27 fire engines are 16% of London's total cover. Kbabe makes the assumption that those engines will not be returning to fire stations. It is an assumption, not fact at this stage. However Coleman did yesterday in a last minute amendment to a Fire Authority budget committee, 'suggest' officers explore, as part of the budget process, and report back to the Committee? on whether the Brigade needs all 27 of the fire appliances removed from stations during the current industrial action to be returned or whether there is an over-supply of appliances This to me seems to be at best, an opportunist attempt cut the number of fire engines (in light of coming budget cuts), at worst a cynical move designed to inflame ffs and punish them for striking, but it's an opportunity that wouldn't have presented itself had the ffs not gone on strike, therefore requiring the removal of engines in the first place. My view is that the engines should return to their stations and any cuts, and discussion of them can come afterwards.