Timster

Can anyone recommend a builder to look at some repointing and external/internal repairs where we've got some cracking at the front of the house (that I hope is not serious) Thanks

No, in short. They are obsessed with what she has eaten but that is it. One parent's day in a year and they had no written records at all of her development or observations. Are nurseries obliged to monitor development by reference to EYFS?

Thanks - her language and social skills are fine and developing well for her age. I have no concerns about her. It is just that the nursery does not seem to engage with her at all at the level of her development and seems to leave her with younger children so she ends up playing by herself. Having seen her with slightly older children I know what she is capable of and nursery seems to be holding her back.

Our nearly two year old has been at nursery two days a week for the last 10 months. I have no doubt she is properly cared for and looked after but I am concerned that, as she is developing language and social skills, the nursery continues to treat her like a baby. When I get her home from nursery she plays with her dinner in a way she does not on days when she is not at nursery. I only ever see her at the nursery with apparently younger children who do not engage with her the way I know she can engage with other children. When I ask the nursery staff what she has done during the day, they look blank and tell me she has run around a lot and not eaten her lunch. And then talk to her in a baby voice. We know they are not keeping any written records of her development. I want to write to the nursery to express my concerns - but am I being a pushy dad with unrealistic expectations? And what are nurseries expected to provide to under 2's above and beyond changing their nappies and feeding them? I had thought OFSTED required nurseries to help even toddlers learn and develop language and social skills. Any thoughts welcome.

But not all on the same day. The original post refers to 500,000 extra travellers every day.

Where do the figures for 500,000 extra passengers and 3 million additional trips come from? I am a bit cynical about this and tend to think it is all scaremongering and the figures are plucked out of thin air ( why would each of these extra passengers be doing six journeys?) If you think how many commuters travel into London every day, the number of people going to the Olympic venues will be a drop in the ocean. And during the summer holidays when commuter trains are half as busy as normal.

Does anyone know if the dustmen were on strike today? Or is there some other reason our bin hasn't been emptied?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Children are also subjected to maths and history > and brain washing about five a day and global > warming - so what? Ok. I now understand why I am not going to win this debate.

It's not about diversity - I am quite happy about people having diverse views, religions, cultures etc. I just don't think schools are the place to impose those views on others. Silverfox seems to forget that whilst parents may exercise free choice when they send their children to these schools, it is the children that are subjected to rigid and hostile ideas about what is right and wrong.

Wow. Since I last visited we've done the whole NHS vs private sector debate (I have a vague recollection of having this argument with MM about two years ago) and now we're on reindeers. If the 50p tax rate raised no more than an extra ?100,000 a year (after the cost of collecting etc) then I would still be in favour of it. Because if you didn't have that ?100,000 from the 50p tax rate payers then you would have to find it or save it somewhere else - maybe half a dozen teaching assistants, less money for road improvements, whatever - all things that in my book are worth more than the mild irritation of those high earners. Arguing that it is an inconsequential sum and so should be done away with is like saying it would be a waste of time pursuing MM if he decided to stop paying his taxes because his unpaid taxes represent an infinitesimally tiny fraction of the UK's tax revenue. Also, the VAT rise to 20% has almost certainly increased the burden on low earners far more than the 50p rate has raised the burden for high earners. And I would like to ask MM et al, would you rather be earning ?100k paying 40p (or 50p even) or ?30k paying 20p? If the former, then case closed.

What really irritates me about the tone of some of this is that, despite all the reasonable and objective arguments for taxing high earners or the wealthy more, some people object to it purely on a point of principle - as if the rich are some endangered species that are constantly being attacked and hounded by nasty Guardian reading types and jealous chavs and need special protection - and it's never the rich themselves that run these arguments - they know how lucky they are! It's gullible Daily Mail readers and the like who never have a chance of earning enough to pay a 50p rate.

Of course, the Labour government introduced a new tax rate that raises virtually zero money just to have a go at bashing the rich. And the Tories kept it. Really? Think about that for a fraction of a second. The only reason some people are arguing that it does not raise money is because they have an ideological objection to it. This from the Guardian: The Treasury predicts that over the next five years the 50p tax rate will raise ?5.3bn more than it would have raised if the top rate of tax had remained at 45p, and ?12.6bn more than it would have raised if the top rate had stayed at 40p. The commercial secretary to the Treasury Lord Sassoon revealed this information in answer to a parliamentary question tabled by Lord Ashcroft in November 2010. You can see it here (Column WA288)

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are more things in heaven and earth, > Horatio, > Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. > Hamlet, Act I scene v Like what?

which is not far off where the 40p tax rate starts. I don't really understand the point people are trying to make - I have no objection to taxing the top 3% rather than 1.5%. But if you make the cut-off point 45k all you're doing is effectively raising the 40p tax rate to 50p. There may be a case for that but I suspect it would seriously deflationary in a way a tax on the very highest earners is not.

Quite, not being able to pay school fees does not count as being poor in my book. And I missed MM's attempt to argue I'd conceded it was a bad idea to tax the City because it was booming - I was making the point that the 50p tax rate had not led to hordes of City-types heading to Zurich and New York.