LondonMix

Also, Blah Blah, I've looked and investment (at least on infrastructure and major public service projects) is not at an all time low. Its been one of the few areas ring fenced within the budget to be protected from cuts according to the Guardian. Can you provide some evidence about your views on investment or explain what you mean by investment being at an all time low.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/labour-leadership-tories-conservative-party-poll-vote-intention-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-a7156381.html Also, not voting Tory isn't the same thing as hating them. I'm not in a Tory household but neither my husband or I would say we hate them.

Okay-- I thought you accusing me of being sarcastic was petulant. I've also reread what you wrote and you 100% said growth as well as investment. The claim regarding growth is patently wrong but I am not trying to stifle your views. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the same > time, investment and growth have fallen to all > time lows,

I'm not even a Tory! I'd like to think I'm an independent but in reality I'm much worse. I tend like politicians associated with New Labour :/ My husband's family are the same so once David Miliband failed to become leader some still reluctantly vote labor (though I'm not sure they will under Corbyn) while others now vote Tory. I'd say we are all centrist-moderates who are very socially liberal. I feel like an endangered species watching QT...

I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm not sure why you think I was. You saying there was no growth, when there was clearly growth is just factually incorrect. Growth in 2014 was 2.9% and in 2015 was 2.2%. That compares favourably to the global average and is high relative to other developed countries. My view that the record pre-Brexit wasn't bad is my view and I have clearly stated that I think the referendum was a mistake and will ultimately be Cameron's legacy. What exactly is your problem with me talking about his record pre and post Brexit? If you can't take people disagreeing with you without becoming petulant I'm not sure what you enjoy about debating issues on the forum...

Hi Jules. You are no worse off using all of your slots than putting down 2-3 schools because the allocation is done by ranked preference so there really is nothing to lose by filling them all in. However, by not using all your preference slots, you do risk being allocated a place by Southwark, so unless someone is genuinely indifferent between all remaining schools in Southwark, putting down not just your favourite options but all you'd prefer to complete random allocation makes most sense. Also, you are no worse off putting your favourite school first, even its not your most realistic option which is also worth keeping in mind-- I'm not suggesting you said otherwise but just wanted to say that explicitly. The above has consistently been Renata's advice both at primary and secondary level on the forum if you search her posts but it would be interesting to know how problematic this has been for parents in recent years. Like Scruffy Mummy says, the opening of the new Charter school is bound to make availability of places a bit easier going forward.

There is a huge range in price between bifold doors-- you can pay 1,500 or 10k depending on the brand and style. I'd sit down with the architect and get a more detailed breakdown to see where you could potentially save. Based on what you've said, the building work and fees should easily be able to come in at under 100k if not less.

I suggested that to my DH and he told me that was crazy. Even if it doesn't distract the public, it might distract certain MPs... Its just so bizarre if its not tactical in someway Aristide Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Part of me wonders why on earth she'd choose > such > > a contentious and wrongheaded policy position > at > > the start of her tenure. > > > takes your mind off Brexit though doesnt it? > Especially to the majority of little englanders > that voted brexit to prevent immigration, there > not going to get that, but they might get their > grammars back. > > Smoke and mirrors

This is exactly my point. In the US, its exactly the same. I'm not sure there is a human being capable of what could be universally acclaimed as good leadership. There are extremely tough choices to be made in politics and no crystal ball. The hubris it takes to even think you are capable of running a country like the US or the UK explains why these guys are all somewhat unhinged. It takes a deluded level of self confidence to make these kinds of calls and decisions. I can pontificate on my keyboard but in real life the weight of it would give me heart attack. Do you see how old every US president looks by the end of the 8 year tenures? Its like the picture of Dorian Grey! ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But who does? > > Churchill clearly - but really only the 2nd WW, > after that terrible > > Atlee - true, radical reforming govt (but everyone > forgets they were kicked out pretty swiftly to be > followed by a decade of Tory rule > > Thatcher - saviour of the nation or satan and > creator of all that is evil in the world today > > To my mind Wilson's 60's govt were pretty good in > terms of Social Reform (abortion, capital > punishment, homosexuality) and avoiding Vietnam > but ultimately poor on economy and Wilson is > blighted by his terrible 70s govt. > > It's a tough old world

I wish I'd seen that quids! Rahrah-- I don't actually disagree that the current system harms social mobility. The government on some level seems to acknowledge that as they seem to want to create feeder schools for grammars from poor communities and / or introduce socioeconomic quotas for admission to ensure a minimum number of disadvantaged children gain admission. A targeted approach to capture the most talented disadvantaged pupils could work. However, Grammars should never, even reformed as outlined above be more than 10% of schools so the idea that any school at will could become selective is utter madness. Part of me wonders why on earth she'd choose such a contentious and wrongheaded policy position at the start of her tenure.

Cutting the deficit without causing a recession requires constant recalibration based on current facts and evidence. That's why its not a simple accounting task and that's why cutting more slowly at times, was the absolute right decision. Being critical of what is a monumentally difficult economic and political balancing act at what was a time of extreme market volatility entirely misses the point. Now, on Libya, the NHS, the mishandling of specific cuts, certain education reforms etc, there is a lot of space for criticism of specific policies. Brexit was of course a ridiculous gamble to take and a major political miscalculation and will be his legacy. However, policy on raising the minimum wage, gay rights among other things means I can't in fairness pretend the Cameron administration were villains. They made mistakes (serious mistakes). Every administration makes certain mistakes and without Brexit, I actually think Cameron's legacy wouldn't have been half bad. I would never want to be a politician because its literally impossible to get it all right and yet for those that oppose you that is the only standard they hold the opposition to, which of course is ridiculous. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Osborne repeatedly missed his own targets on which > he asked us to judge him. I will, thanks George. > > Sure, he did bring down the deficit, but more > slowly than Labour had said they would - a rate > which Obsorne had claimed would be disastrous. > Both him and Cameron talked down the economy in > the early days of their first term and did a lot > of damage in the process. All to make political > capital by suggesting that Labour had crashed the > economy and left us 'like Greece'. > > They repeatedly took decisions which weren't > thought through and weren't in the national > interest in exchange for small, short term > political gains. > > Cameron's decision to gamble on Brexit was > cavalier. > > Oh, and then there's Libya of course. > > Any achievements are well outweighed by their > failures. The net result, is probably worse than > nothing. I believe that history will judge both > him and Osborne rather badly.

That seems expensive but it really depends on your expectations on design and what that estimate includes. What kind of rooflights does that assume? Are you using reclaimed London Stock brick or rendered cement blocks for the extension. Do you need to do additional foundation work? What specification of windows and doors would that require and is the architect including the cost of the kitchen and finishing in their estimate. Does that include refinishing the garden following the work and are you installing a downstairs loo or utility room as part of the redesign? are they charging you project management fees to oversea the build in addition to architectural design fees? A side return extension can easily cost that much but that is definitely on the real upper end of the spectrum. If you can't afford that, there are certainly ways to bring the total cost down considerably and still get an attractive design. Good luck!

Making cuts isn't easy politically or practically. Also, the economy has grown-- actually up until Brexit the economy with the cuts was the fastest growing in Europe and unemployment was also low which was finally starting to feed through to real wages. Again, I have my criticisms of Cameron and Osborne (some scathing) but they are balanced by at least being able to acknowledge the facts of what they have done.

Cutting the deficit by 50% isn't nothing. I'm not saying you have to agree with his policies but its kind of ridiculous to suggest absolutely nothing was achieved and I say this as someone who thinks the former government was wrong on their approach to education, the NHS, the nature of certain cuts among other things.

Congrats-- Expecting Better is an informative and easy read. You could also join one of the antenatal clubs on Mumsnet. The veteran moms provide a wealth of insight and information and all the new moms can ask 'is this normal for this stage of pregnancy' questions. There are also meet ups organised here on the forum depending on the season your baby is due so Summer Babies, Winter Babies etc. Do a search of this section. ESPH do good pregnancy yoga and pregnancy pilates classes which I can definitely recommend.

Okay, so I'm guessing you won't miss him then! I don't think Dave was great but I'm not sure any of the likely alternatives in either party will be better. In fact, some I fear are considerably worse ideologically.

Looking up quids question, I came across this rather interesting article about the state and private sector. Obviously nothing to do with grammars but interesting all the same. Obviously here in Dulwich the private schools are some of the top in the entire country which can lead you to forget how mediocre many private schools actually might be. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/the-best-state-schools-have-pulled-ahead-of-private-schools-why-is-that-so-hard-to-accept/

That's true, they didn't reduce the deficit as much as they wanted to. Partly because of the the evolution of GDP growth during and post crisis and public backlash against austerity. The point was that it needed addressing which is all I ever said about it. I'm not sure I get the point you are trying to make. The deficit is roughly half of what it was as a percentage of GDP at its worst, which honestly is still too high relative to long term growth prospects of the country.

Not in absolute terms which is what was being discussed. The debt to GDP ratio of course can change if growth is higher than the deficit but the actual quantum of debt cannot go down without a surplus position. The real value of debt in inflation adjusted terms also can go down if the deficit is lower than inflation. I'm not anti-deficit. A moderate deficit is perfectly healthy under the right economic conditions. Also deficit spending on long term investment that will support growth is very different to structural deficits on ongoing spending commitments.

I think the getting kids into university measure, while somewhat interesting doesn't address the entire picture. The 7% or so of kids that attend private school absolutely are not enough to run every job requiring a university degree in the country these days-- that's part of the room at the top legacy of past growth. However, within certain sectors of the economy, a private school education is almost universal among those working in the field. In my field that is 100% the case for every British person (not so among the Europeans and Americans). The industry doesn't have to be extremely well paid for this to be the case either, but can still be the reserve of those from a certain upbringing. An example (that is changing) is airline pilots. I didn't even realise there was a class dimension to this until one of my friends started dating a BA pilot. He was originally from East London and very working class. As a kid he was told if he wanted to become a pilot he'd have to lose his East London / working class accent, which he did. When my very young brother in law met him, he remarked, I can't believe that guy is a pilot, he seems so normal. Normal to him meant not posh. There is a psychological barrier for working class people regarding certain industries and this is sometimes a real barrier reinforced by specific class prejudice in hiring. I worked a summer job in the UK in 2004 for headhunter in financial services while still at university and we had a client specifically turn down a more qualified candidate because of fit. My boss was exceedingly posh (Eton, tittle, the works) so he felt comfortable saying it was because of his social background. My boss ranted and raged about it for ages as he was actually a pretty hard core egalitarian.

Exactly rahrah-- as long as there is still a deficit the debt will continue to go up. Only a surplus position can reverse that. I agree that the rich should and are better placed to shoulder the burden. The truth is though, that the rich are two small a segment of the total population to be the only solution to long term structural financial problems. The hard choices have only just begun-- the NHS boss who recently came out and said its time to admit the NHS can't provide the level of target service with the funding it has and its time to decide to formally reduce service levels isn't being alarmist. Hospitals are on the verge of closing A&E services overnight. That's just the NHS. There are many other difficult decisions that need to be tackled regarding public services and taxes. What really annoys me though is everyone happily accepted their tax cuts from the government while in the same breadth complaining about the cut in public services. Its one or the other.

There are of course many exceptions, including my very working class mother in law who was a grammar school girl. She still left at 15 to get a job but was predicted all As despite regularly skipping class as she didn't fit in. The point is you have to be exceptionally clever as a working class kid to get in whereas the middle classes just get a better free education than the rest of the population-- and this is a zero sum game in many respects due to limited resources including quality teachers. If it was truly meritocratic, I'd have a lot less issue with them. Some of the ideas being bandied around by the government for quotas for lower income students in grammars would help address some of these imbalances.

The problem with grammars here is that the system is easily manipulated by socio-economic advantage so that access isn't entirely determined by merit (or raw capability). Therefore they fail at the fundamental task of increasing social mobility.

Agree that genuine ignorance played it part in certain policy decisions. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the big issue for the Tories and the cuts > were that many people (including me) believe cuts > were and still are necessary - where they chose to > do them wasn't always right and/or could easily > spun around posh boys cutting public services. I > do think, through no direct fault of their own but > birth, Osbourne and Cameron have no idea how what > to thenm seem trivial amounts matter to those far > less priveliged. I genuinely think they just > didn't get this in terms of benefits cuts etc. > > But we've a far more right wing or certainly more > 'ideological' govt now I think. Next election the > choice looks like being 'back to the 50s or back > to the 70s'! > > in my view Cameron>May>Corbyn......none that good

The hit rate is pretty high though the grip isn't exclusive. So all those guys get great jobs but most of their colleagues won't have gone to those schools if you know what I mean. I think there are people who are clearly defined as middle class because of the way they speak and other social elements of how they live (dress, sports the watch etc). Someone earning the exact same amount without those specific cultural affectations would be considered working class. That's the bit that's different. I talking about a level well below Dukes :) miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know the US - but it would be interesting > to see the hit rate for the "top jobs" from the > schools you mention. > > Also - I've heard this "money isn't class" thing > bandied about, and I think it's a myth. Maybe an > outlier here and there, sure, but there's surely > strong correlation between the two. The duke > fallen on hard times....gimme a break, two > generations of that, and as Kenny Powers would > say, "you're f***** out".