Earl Aelfheah

in your analogy, what one may choose to do, is to limit the amount of apples any one person may take... so as to prevent all the apples going to one person. Further more, you may decide to slice a number of the apples up so that everyone may at least have a small piece.

Agree with BrandNewGuy - Developers, given free reign will build 'luxury' flats over affordable homes, because it's where the profit is... not least because they can be marketed to overseas buyers. Where there are domestic restraints on supply, but huge latent demand from an international market, as with London housing, you either let the market set a high price, (which will leave UK citizens on an average income forever priced out of the Capital), or you regulate the market to ensure that London remains a diverse, characterful and vibrant city

Does anyone know what the latest are on these? There was a consultation some time ago, but I can't find anything on the Southwark Planning site and we've not heard anymore. Thanks

Mainly the forum.

Apparently I joined in 2007, although I seem to remember lurking for sometime before I actually felt compelled to comment (on a bit of obvious trolling which I really ought to have left alone - nothing changes).

Zac Goldsmith's an interesting one.

I apologise, I misread Mark88's post. Edited to add: I've removed my previous two posts as it was not my intention to upset anyone.

.

.

I hammer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If Russ Abbot stands for mayor then he would be > representing The Party with a happy atmosphere . :-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think that is your biased observation. You > seem > > to be saying that when Labour do a bad > > privatisation it is a 'mistake', but when the > > Tories do it it is 'dogmatism'? Where is the > > evidence for that statement? > > > > > You couldn't turn that around and accuse > Labour > > of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. > > > > I would say there is little, if no difference, > > between Labour's view on privatisation and Tory. > > > NHS, council housing, utilities have all been > > privatised, prepared for privatisation or > listed > > for privatisation by Labour and Tory alike. In > > fact, it's worth noting, since the NHS is such > a > > hot topic, that when Blair took office (i.e. > post > > Thatcher/Major) there was little to no > > privatisation in the NHS. Yet, by 2008 that had > > changed markedly, especially though PPI. > > > > Can you list a few areas that Tories have >d? > > You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the > private sector for service delivery. Whether one > agrees with where and how they've chosen to do > this is another debate. The point is, they are > willing to accept private sector involvement or > not, depending on the case. My point was that The > Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state > should commission services, not run them (a point > you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a > position which basically says, the state should > not be involved in running services regardless of > circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely > ideological. So Loz, rather than trying to debate the merits of individual privatisations, whats your respnse to my main point?

You are right about Lloyds (my mistake), but I didn't mention Northern Rock/Bradford and bingley and as I said, it's not particularly relevant to my point. You can knock down straw men if you like, but the point that I was making is that the Tories take a dogmatically ideological position with regards privatisation, rather than a pragmatic one.

That depends what you mean by 'the left'. Basically, if you want it to mean someone who is on the extreme left, then of course, yes, by definition they will be dogmatic. But I'm talking about the mainstream parties who broadly stand on opposite sides of the political divide. If I use your logic then 'the right' are all fascists.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you list a few areas that Tories have > privatised that Labour has refused to or - even > better - reversed? They opposed sell off of Royal Mail and the con policy to force the sell off of housing assoc stock at under market rates. More recently, the sell off of publically owned shares in Lloyds and RBS (again, typically, at a loss to the taxpayer). I'm sure there are plenty of others, but that wasn't really my point. My point was that 'the left' were accused first of being dogmatically opposed to all privatisation, then of being no different in their position to privatisation than the right. I think they believe in a role for the private sector, (but also the state) in running public services. That seems to me a more rational and pragmatic premise.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that is your biased observation. You seem > to be saying that when Labour do a bad > privatisation it is a 'mistake', but when the > Tories do it it is 'dogmatism'? Where is the > evidence for that statement? > > > You couldn't turn that around and accuse Labour > of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. > > I would say there is little, if no difference, > between Labour's view on privatisation and Tory. > NHS, council housing, utilities have all been > privatised, prepared for privatisation or listed > for privatisation by Labour and Tory alike. In > fact, it's worth noting, since the NHS is such a > hot topic, that when Blair took office (i.e. post > Thatcher/Major) there was little to no > privatisation in the NHS. Yet, by 2008 that had > changed markedly, especially though PPI. > > Can you list a few areas that Tories have > privatised that Labour has refused to or - even > better - reversed? You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the private sector for service delivery. Whether one agrees with where and how they've chosen to do this is another debate. The point is, they are willing to accept private sector involvement or not, depending on the case. My point was that The Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state should commission services, not run them (a point you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a position which basically says, the state should not be involved in running services regardless of circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely ideological.

OK. I may have found the answer. Think this could be the first ever post? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,9,9#msg-9

That only take you back to 2007 and i'm pretty sure it's older than that (expect there has been some archiving). I'm wondering whether it's reached 10 yet (if not, must be soon).

Just out of interest, how old is the EDF - when's it's birthday and are there any current posters left who were here on day 1?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do Pubs rely on selling food to make ends > meet...? > > ...and Restaurants rely on selling alcohol.. ? > > DulwichFox Ha! That's a very good question.

If you look at Labour's record, they were pretty pragmatic when it came to using private sector providers (whether or not they made the good choices aside). The Conservatives take any opportunity to divest from state run services, regardless of value for money. You couldn't turn that around and accuse Labour of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. It's too easy to say 'oh they're all ideological' - of course, and that's not a bad thing in itself, but my point is the Conservatives are particularly dogmatic.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See? Sometimes 'bad looking' privatisations > actually have very good financial reasons. Thanks for the patronising tone btw.

Loz - this ignores the fact that the previous two private operators failed to meet their financial commitments and that over the next eight years there will be on going subsidies. If you would like another example - the sell off of council housing is probably the most ridiculous - houses disposed off at huge discounts, many of which are then rented back by local authorities at private rates, or by individuals who then claim increased Housing benefit. Anyway, we could probably debate the rights and wrongs of individual sell off until the cows come home, but I would be interested to know your view on my main contention; The Conservatives fundamentally (and imo doggedly) believe that the state should commission services, not run them.

Are you sure she wasn't waiting to be buried?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MrBen from your logic we've had the gentrification > debate, so let's brush it under the carpet and > pretend it's not happening? > > Louisa. It's a reasonable debate to have (and not inappropriate in the context of this particular thread). I think where people have rightly got annoyed in the past, is when threads are repeatedly diverted off topic into a 'gentrification' rant.

Just to please quids and confirm his suspicion that I?m some kind of Marxist, I will add this - I do also have a moral and philosophical ambivalence with regards private companies having too big a role in a tax funded service. These are not free markets in the most fundamental sense - 'consumers' are forced to buy these services on threat of legal sanction (via taxation). This is morally acceptable because there is an implicit social contract- certain services, such as education and healthcare are funded collectively and offered to all. We accept this as the cost of living in a civilised, social democracy. When not all that money is reinvested into improving services however, but is diverted into the hands of shareholders, I do think it disrupts this social contract. So yes, I do think there is also an ideological tension with regards public money and private profits.