LondonMix

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Part of me wants to see the Don be President just > to see what happens That's insane

Ah, that was excellent! Its a good summary of the madness so far. For those interested in the more detailed information on Trump's finances (or lack there of) this article is very good: http://gawker.com/donald-trumps-grossly-exaggerated-net-worth-a-timeline-1711718182

Which bit of what I've said on this thread did John Oliver discuss?

Its a large inheritance and his claims that his is a billionaire could very well be false. A large part of his estimated wealth is his own estimate of the value of his Trump brand which he license out to be used for a fee. He has lost lawsuits against people who have claimed that his wealth is in the millions rather than billions.

I'm not a huge fun of Harris (I think they've behaved badly with the Nunhead primary school saga) but some of their schools (like Crystal Palace) are hugely popular and over subscribed. The local ones in this area get good results too so perhaps their popularity will change with time. I think the government should listen to the fact that parents do not want more Harris schools in this area-- as they did with the secondary school campaign-- I'm really not sure its fair or accurate to go do two minute personal interest stories suggesting there is a school place crisis in Dulwich because some parents don't like Harris. A better headline would be Dulwich parents think there are two many Harris schools operating locally. I wish news reporting on education policy was handled more substantively. Why not write a story about the special needs threshold being too high if that's really a major issue? Why do the press always write the same tired story that parents can't get their kids into a descent school perpetuating angst and a feeling of crisis!

Belle, so, you think people would be happier of some of the existing single sex schools in the area were made into co-ed schools? The least over subscribed school near ED is Harris Peckham in the Peckham Rye area which is very nearby, co-ed and non-religious and its less popular than the two ED Harris single sex schools. Renata, is going co-ed something that could actually be tested via consultation and then discussed with any of the local schools? None of the secondaries in this immediate area are religious schools so I'm not sure that's actually a major issue. Children affected by special needs that fall below the threshold of priority allocation can only be dealt with by changing the standard. Requiring an average child to commute within 2 miles is really nothing. Most able bodied people can walk two miles in just over 30 minutes. For everyone to have a school place much closer than that would require very small secondary schools dotted all over the place. That's totally impractical: lots of new small secondary schools aren't needed; small schools are much more expensive to operate and would lack certain facilities; and there is no physical space to do that in London.

Yes, not condemning the KKK on Sunday was a new low. The things is, I don't even know if he really has any sympathy for white supremacists or if he is simply willing to pander to anyone to get elected. I have no idea who he really is besides someone willing to do and say anything for power which I find the most dangerous thing of all.

Kasich isn't bad. Rubio is definitely very hard core right-wing. Cruz is horrible and Donald Trump is the most dangerous. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > W looks like a moderate liberal compared with > pretty much all of the current candidates. I'm not > even sure that Trump is the worst of them. They're > all vile.

To be fair, Donald Trump isn't really a republican. His policy views are completely at loggerheads with the Republican party. He is a demagogue who realised his best bet to power in a two party system was to attach himself to one of the existing parties and then cobble together support from any group that would support him. His supporters are disproportionately uneducated and he has a ground well of support from white supremacists who he is actively courting and who have endorsed him. He recently proposed to kill the innocent family members of ISIS terrorists as a deterrent (which of course is a war crime under the Geneva convention). He threatens anyone including donors who challenge him. He's really a monster. Much worse than anyone I've ever seen in the US political system.

Blah Blah, that's not entirely true or accurate. First, Donald Trump inherited millions not billions. Also, Obama successfully reformed health care in America via the passage of the Affordable Care Act which has significantly extended healthcare coverage in the US. How much a president can accomplish via congressional bills is in part dependent on if his or her party has control of either or both houses of congress (the senate and the house of representatives) and the if the political atmosphere supports bipartisanship. While Trump is liar and a dangerous demagogue he has tapped into a deep running well of disillusionment and if many who typically don't vote come out and support him in the general election he could win. The one balancing factor is that republican congressional figures have stated that they would vote for Hillary Clinton if he won the party's nomination and many traditional republican voters might do the same or not vote at all. We'll have to wait and see. To your point though, Donald Trump would not have support from either the Republican party or Democrats in congress. The Republican leadership has already started creating adds for congressmen who are up for re-election this year that distance themselves from Trump. There is a lot a president can do though outside of congress and I have no doubt that Trump, if elected would abuse his ability to circumvent congress to the extreme. He strikes me as someone who might break enough rules that he'd have to stand for impeachment before the end of his term.

If a child gets allocated a place within a couple miles of his or her house at a good school, is there really a problem with the system? Today, there is no shortage of secondary school places in Southwark so while forward planning is necessary for the 2018 bulge in demand, why are people unhappy today? What more can the system realistically do? Force single sex schools to become co-ed? Serious question- what exactly is the problem and a realistic solution in your view?

What do you mean about the senate keeping Obama in line on Medicare?

??? I was asking a genuine question miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix, do you always use very loaded words and > phrases your interlocutor didn't? "Forced social > cleansing". Jesus wept.

When people say the poor are being displaced who do they mean exactly? For instance, in ED, back in 2001, there were 976 socially rented households (21% of the then total). In 2011 that number increased to 1,073; however, as mostly private market households were developed, the percentage dropped to 203%. My neighbors rent from a housing authority and have been in East Dulwich for 30 years in the same house. They told me all their friends who owned their houses sold up and moved to Kent and they are the last old timers left. No judgement but the people who left seem to be those who were well off enough to buy in the first place and have cashed in their property windfall. When I was looking to buy, a number of the houses being sold were buy older people in that situation. I'm happy to be corrected and be told of the more complex story of forced social cleansing going on in this area-- genuinely curious if there is more to it.

Emigration is the act of leaving your own country while immigration is the act of entering another country. All migrants both emigrate and immigrate by definition. Expat has connotations of impermanence. But more than that it has a subtle connotation of approval. Expats aren't feared and loathed in the same way as immigrants even though they work in some of the most lucrative paying jobs in the country. Most people refer to me as an expat (if it comes up) and while I entertain the idea of going back to the US one day, I've lived in London for 11 years and am married to an Englishman, own a house etc etc.

I don't disagree with the general point the guardian is making but I don't think it falls cleanly along race lines. I think an Asian American working in the city is seen just as much as an expat as a white Frenchman. Its more about not being poor and country of origin than about skin color.

I don't think only white people can be seen as expats at all. I do think highly skilled, culturally similar immigrants aren't seen as the same danger / threat as lower skilled immigrants particularly those form non-Western countries. A lot of the angst around immigration is really cultural. The jobs thing always feels like a way for people to rationalize their discomfort.

Bursaries as a percentage of total pupils is lower at the 3 Dulwich fee paying schools- though most bursaries are for most of the fees. The number of bursaries on offer is limited by the size of the endowment and can only be enhanced by the endowment increasing the return on their assets-- ie. earning more rental income etc. Those that condemn the 3 schools and the Dulwich Estate for not providing more bursaries while simultaneously suggesting the foundation should not charge market rents literally make no sense... (not specifically talking about you Duncan). DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckham_ryu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I've been working in Croydon for a month. > Seabag's > > description is far from snobby - it barely > > scratches the surface of the despair woven into > > > The Whitgift centre is that gift that gives > > absolutely nothing, > > > Au contraire, as it is owned by the Whitgift > Foundation - a charity which runs three > high-performing independent schools in the Croydon > area. Although independent fee-paying schools, > just under half the pupils pay no fees due to > bursaries from the foundation. > > Compare and contrast to a similar charitable > foundation closer to home.

As one of those high-end migrants I've noticed that for a certain type of British person I'm not seen as an immigrant. Genuinely, they don't see me that way. I'm an expat which is some how different (though of course its not). malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting debate with thankfully only a few > rabid contributors. Most excellent, Blah Blah. > > So two things happened to me this week. Firstly I > started this thread before Question Time and I > knew that this would be the big issue. I was > disappointed but not surprised that there was a > big anti-immigrant sentiment amongst the > audience. > > Secondly a 'mate' from an outer borough told a > joke within earshot. What is the similarlity > between sperm and immigrants. You get millions of > each but only one works. It wasn't even funny > forty years ago when manuy of us indulged in > sexist and racist jokes (think Irish for many of > us). > > The irony of the situation was that this was a > badminton match with two or our team immigrants > (Iran and NZ - the Kiwi is proabably the most > racist/homophobic of the lot of us) plaing a team > with three brown people. Two of whom were recent > immigrants, in high end jobs, from India. So > forty years ago it would have been six white vs > six white. But now chappy lives in a much more > intigrated and multiracial world yet still sounds > like he is from the 60s or 70s. "Oh Malumbu > doesn't like these sorts of jokes" Malumbu > replies "you know what you are". Sadly my > experience of Bromley is that this is common > behaviour and if Bromley is representative of > middle England we really are screwed when the vote > swings to exit due to xenophobia. > > Back to the thread, FFS we are the > class/generation who want things at rock bottom > prices, which of coures means low wages for those > prepared to take them. One could take a stand and > pay more. But then as the thread debates would be > unlikely to get better quality. Like an episode of > Family Guy when they insist that everything is > made in the USA, and it is all faulty. Except my > brilliant British made HiFi of course

Fell off the thread but yes, that was exactly my point. miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hang on, hang on, LondonMix was responding to > uncleglen's generalisation about East Europeans > living many to a room and sending child benefit > back, and the previous thrust of the discussion > about EU (but really, Eastern European) migrants > undercutting the "native" workforce for cheap > jobs.....and as is well known, the way to cut down > a claimed rule is to show an example that > disproves it. > > But I agree with you - there are good workers and > bad in every ethnic group (obvs.). And indeed - > most Eastern Europeans I know are ones I work > with, where they do highly skilled, and highly > paid, technical jobs.

ECM, is there really a crisis though if most children attend a good school located within a few miles of their homes? Is it fair to suggest through news reporting that something is fundamentally wrong with the system? There is no immediate need to build more schools yet in Southwark. There isn't actually a shortage of places for a few more years. Its simply that despite virtually all schools being good or outstanding, parents strongly prefer a select few schools meaning that demand for those schools far outstrips any conceivable supply of places. The only solution to this problem is to make all the secondaries as appealing to parents as the most popular ones. The question is why do these strong preferences exist? The Charter ED thread showed that the socio-economic mix of schools is one of the top reasons why some parents prefer the most oversubscribed schools. That's not something that can (or even necessarily should) be intentionally addressed via public policy. News stories like the one proposed just stir the crazy pot adding angst and reinforcing the perpetual feeling of crisis that pervades the school application process.

One of my polish contractors lives in Mitcham with his polish girlfriend in a one bed flat. She works in sales. My polish carpenter lives in SE London with his wife and kids. I know this because I talk to trades people who work for me. I think the idea that most of the polish workers here are able to undercut because they are living basically in guest houses without family is a stretch. Anyone who has worked with British tradesmen and Polish tradesmen know that they are cheaper because they are faster. No faffing about, not turning up etc. Also, they are better trained / skilled which also allows for better and faster work.

I think what people want is for all schools to be so good that no one really cares which one they get into. That's how it is some parts of the world and ideally that's where things will go in the UK. In the 10 years or so I've lived here I've seen the angst around primary school decline dramatically. Except for those in blackholes afraid of being allocated a school miles away, people now largely feel that if they get most any of the local ED schools, their kids will be fine. People still have their preferences, but there isn't a sink school or only one good school you must get into. Hopefully, that attitude will become common for secondary school places soon as none of the secondaries around here are bad academically. Though you'd think the Charter was the only hope of a decent education from the chatter... I think its a bit irresponsible for ITV to comb for the few potentially upset parents before evaluating how many people got one of their top 3 choices so they can weigh if there really is a scandal worth reporting.

I agree that just because the government appoints experts to make a decision, that decision is not automatically right. Doing this type of cost benefit analysis is not an exact science?how you weigh certain priorities- preventative measures vs. treatment, funding for the young vs everyone else etc is in some part a value judgement. However, the larger point still stands. Even an intelligent member of the public cannot fully appreciate what the trade-offs for implementing this might be regarding the NHS budget which is why it?s dangerous for public opinion to determine policy. Asking for a review and a debate though is totally fair. Policy by public opinion can be disastrous. The referendum system is why California is bankrupt. People only vote for new spending and veto all attempts to raise taxes to pay for them?

That's a possibility but that's the first step in transforming the NHS from a free at point of service into a means tested benefit. Who knows if that's what will end up happening- the NHS is at breaking point. To be honest, most high earners have private insurance anyway so I'm not sure how much additional help means testing will be (in general). prm Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes of course the NHS doesn't have money to pay > for everything but why for example are > prescriptions free for all children. How about if > those who can afford pay for they own child > prescriptions and instead the NHS uses the money > to vaccinate everyone against Men B and save > lives?