indiepanda

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Catholics don?t really practice any of the stuff > the church says anyway. Particularly the no birth > control thing. We just don?t mention it when the > priest is around. Just like you don?t tell your > granny when you?ve been smoking crack. It?s a bit > like all that believing in god business. I was brought up a Catholic and know from what my mum said that our local priest told women their choice of contraception was between them and their conscience, he definitely didn't impose the official view on them. I was schooled in Catholic institutions in the 70s/80s and I'm not convinced the average family size was any bigger than the "2.4" stereotype. In any case, sticking to the "no artificial contraception/vatican roulette/avoiding sex during your fertile period" method doesn't have to mean tons of kids if you do it properly. My mum claims to have stuck to it, and I have just one sister. It does require a particularly co-operative husband of course, I certainly wouldn't do it - but then it's been 20 plus years since I told mum I wouldn't be going to church anymore. She did tell me the devil was going to come and get me, but he's certainly taking his time over it.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Courses in personal finances at school level would > be great, I agree with quids. Remember my poor mum > trying to teach me that (in vain). Martin Lewis (the guy who set up the "money savings expert" wesbite) set up a petition on this on the government's epetition site. It reached it's required > 100,000 signatures level and the government's current response is: ?The Government agrees that young people should have access to good quality personal finance education, so that they leave school with the knowledge and confidence to manage their money effectively. Parents can also play a crucial role in helping young people to become financially aware in their day-to-day lives. Schools already use Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education as a framework within which to teach young people about personal financial management. The existing PSHE programmes of study include elements aimed at ensuring that by the time they leave school, pupils should be able to manage their money, understand and explain financial risk and reward, and identify how finance will play an important part in their lives and in achieving their aspirations. We are currently carrying out a review to determine how best to support schools to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching.? Frankly I think they ought to teach some finance as part of the maths course never mind just in PSHE so people understand how it works. I can remember spending time at GSCE on trigonometry which has been of no use to me despite doing a job that requires a decent grade in A level maths. Think things like that should be saved for A level, and they should introduce things like compound interest which everyone should understand - e.g. how to calculate how big your credit card bill will become in X years if you only pay off the minimum. As to the wider topic, I think my concern about the vocational subjects that count towards GCSE is that it seems in some schools, less able children are encouraged to do these subjects not because they want but because the head wants to boost the school's position in the league table, which doesn't necessarily serve their best interests. Personally I think most vocational education could wait until after the age of 16.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nearly there on the Banking crisis, Indiepanda, > unlike Damian! The ordinary folks couldn't afford > to pay their mortgage as interests rates went up > in the US. The banks geared their securitisation > products so instead of multiplying their profits > they multiplied their losses. Credit Raters didn't > carry out their due dilligence checks either. I was well aware of those points too, but thanks for continuing to patronise me as if I wasn't. Just because I don't feel the need to spout everything I know to prove my understanding doesn't mean I am not aware. > I fully agree that there should be caps placed on > mortgage lending but I suspect this would go > against the Tory's free market principle where > it's up to the lenders to decide what is > appropriate lending. While you may think that 125% > lending was a high figure then you may not be > aware that there was talk of the 100 year > mortgage, a type of product found in Japan. Talk isn't the same as it actually happening - and 100 year mortgages seems singularly daft - what would you do? Pass them onto your children after you die. Pensions may have been comprehensively messed up by higher than expected increases in life expectancy, but we aren't going to be living long enough to pay those off. Not all people with right wing views think that markets should be left entirely to their own devices. I think this latest crisis has proved beyond all doubt that is a mistake. Let's face it, company leaders are heavily influenced by short term goals - what the share price is, this years bonuses and not long term goals like sustainable profits and treating customers in an ethical way. > There are some people who feel that there have > been improvements to Schools and Hospitals. I used > to hear stories how some of these public services > were closed to the public due to leaky roofs > because the Tory government didn't gave them > enough money. I guess you want a return to the > dark ages of the Tories when the streets were > filthy, burglaries on the high, violent strikes, > high unemployment, business collapsing, etc. And yet again you've failed to read what I said. I commented they didn't always get the best value for money in their investments which isn't hardly the same as suggesting every penny they spent was wasted. I don't think the money spent on schools necessarily worked as it should have done. Strikes me the focus has been on teaching children to pass exams for league tables which has created perverse incentives for schools to push less able children into what they can do well in - lots of easy supposedly GCSE equivalent subjects that aren't useful, rather than what they will need to get on it the world. Equally, I am not at all happy with what the Tories are up to with the NHS - change is needed but they seem to be going at it like a bull in a china shop and not listening to the medics concerns which is never going to work. Any fool should know you need to work with the people in a system to change it not try impose changes from above. As for filthy streets - last time I recall seeing truly filthy streets was in the winter of discontent when rubbish was piled up for weeks in the public car parks in my town... Now I was very young at the time, but even I know that wasn't when a Tory government was in power. Incidentally, I though a lot of the economic problems in the 90s were related to the ridiculous decision to enter the ERM at an overvalued exchange rate in the late eighties and the resulting hikes in interest rates to keep us in the ERM, leading to significant problems for homeowners and the crash in mortgage market, rather than oil. Leading on from that, one thing I would praise Brown highly for is not taking us into the Euro. I couldn't believe the number of people who thought we should on the grounds "it'd be nice to go on holiday without having to change your money" or that anyone who opposed it was just a jingoistic little islander who couldn't give up the ?. Don't think they are quite on the same page now... I find it quite amusing that you accuse me of Tory prejudice against Brown when it seems you are totally prejudiced against all things Tory. As for me, I'm not even someone who consistently votes Tory so am hardly wedded to the Tory view of the world - to the extent that could even be said to exist given the range of views held in one party.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was Lord Myners who okayed the Fred Goodwin's > pension deal which resulted in widespread > condemnation in the Labour Party. Your assertion > that the Labour Party agreed Goodwin's pension is > totally wrong. Tell me, can you actually read?? I actually said that the labour party gave him his knighthood for services to banking not that they granted him his pension. I understand perfectly well what happened in the financial crisis. At it's most basic level its about too many people / companies (and now it turns out countries too) borrowing money they couldn't afford to pay back and the banks turning out to be far to eager to make profits that they were too lazt to do sufficient due diligence to check they were really going to get their money back. Where it got more complicated was all the securitisation arrangements where that debt was packaged up and sold on multiple different times and the banks / insurers that bought it didn't do enough due diligence to work out that what they bought was not a AAA asset but a house of cards that could come tumbling down. Once the penny dropped all the banks got scared still of lending to each other, hence the crisis. If you had bothered to read anything I have written properly you'd have noticed I haven't once claimed Gordon Brown was to blame for the crisis, only pointed out that he a) had arrogantly assumed he had put an end to boom and bust so spent in a way that one might not consider advisable if the party was going to end at some point in the future. I think even he has admitted now he was wrong to assume he had ended boom and bust, so he doesn't need your defense on that point. (He might disagree that he would have spent less if knew the money was going to run out - but I doubt many would have impressed if he did) b) was not completely innocent of any involvement in creating the crisis. You seem to want to give him credit for everything good that ever happened to the UK economy while he was in power either at the Treasury or as Prime Minister, but suggest he had no part at all in anything that went wrong. Again, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't make that claim for himself, he might have shown a lack of humility in his early days but I think he has shown a little more modesty in recent years. As for NR, it shouldn't even have been legal in the UK for mortgage companies to be lending people 125% of the value of the house - yet for some time after Northern Rock were receiving emergency support from the Treasury, they were still offering a product which allowed customers to borrow up to 125% the property value. I think most people would think at the least a cap should have been set at 95% LTV for new mortgage offers as soon as they needed external support. c) that not all of the additional money pumped into the public sector seemed to generate improvements in the service provided by the public sector - i.e. Gordon didn't always get value for our money. If you see this as being prejudiced against Gordon Brown you have an odd understanding of what the word means.

My other half likes popping in occasionally to watch the football, but that seems to be about the only thing to attract people other than the regulars to the CPT. I lived one block south of there for well over 2 years and I think I might have been in there twice in that time... it would be very hard for the refit not to be an improvement from my perspective.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @indiepanda, > > Gordon Brown got hit by one of the biggest > financial crisis but the Tory governments of 80s & > 90s couldn't handle a little increase in oil > prices before the economy went topsy turvy. You say "got hit" as if it was nothing to do with him whatsoever. Try reading the reports on what happened at Northern Rock - a complete failure of the regulator to spot how badly managed they were. That's the regulator that was answerable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now who was that during much of the period in which they were running their dangerous growth strategy. Yep, your genius Gordon Brown. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/library/communication/pr/2008/028.shtml You seem to be completely unable to admit the Labour government ever made any mistakes, and frankly if you as a left winger are trying to disprove the hypothesis it's the right wingers that are less intelligent, you are doing a very good job of it. You've willfully misunderstood Quids point too, which I think is that public sector workers mainly have defined benefit pensions where the pensions they are paid are not affected by the value of the stock and bond markets over the time they are working and at retirement, but most private sector workers have to take their chances with their poxy defined contribution pensions which are largely at the mercy of the markets. The pensions of the likes of Fred the Shred (who was given his knighthood when Labour were in power... so surely you think he deserves that pension given his "services" to banking??!) are outliers that are far from representative of what the average public sector worker can look forward to. That's those pensions that were undermined by the dot com bubble bursting which didn't affect the UK economy? Except of course it did, helping to create massive pension deficits which pushed most private sector companies to close their defined benefit pension schemes to new members and allowing them to set up new defined contribution schemes, passing the risks off to their members.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remember hearing a Tony Blair speech at the > British Library where he talked about the British > economy, the fourth biggest in the world, being > resilient enough to beat the recession. So Gordon > Brown was confident enough to say a UK recession > was unlikely. But he didn't turn out to be right though. Which in my book is more important than being confident about it!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The UK IT company I work for has a share price > that is currently trading at about 3% of their > value at the height of the dot-com boom. > > You could say that it was kind of affected. Just > a little. Quite right Loz. And even for those of us not working it IT, many of those of us working in jobs with defined contribution pensions are still feeling the pain of the drops in share prices, all going to be working longer if we want to make up with the impact on our savings. That crash out a lot of people off investing in lots of stocks and shares and focus on property instead, helping to create the market we have now where it's so hard for people to get on the housing ladder. To say the dot com bubble didn't affect the UK just because we didn't end up in recession is a very limited view of what matters financially to people.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's telling when you see all these right wingers > spouting hearsays as facts. Obviously indiepanda > hasn't heard of the dot com crash and its implact > on global economies including Europe but excluding > the UK. Seriously, the dot com crash didn't affect the UK???? Stock market late 1999 c 6900, never been anything like the same level in the 12 years since? I was working for an insurance company and was calculating on a weekly basis whether we were still solvent when that crash happened. We had to pump in tens of millions of pounds to ensure it did remain solvenct, and this was a tiny company with only a few thousand policyholders. Many of those policies are still worth less than they paid for them now (unit linked so the policyholders took most of the financial risk) so I am guessing they wouldn't agree with your statement that the dot com crash didn't affect the UK. > Well, indiepanda spoke about the Labour > government's financial acumen (or lack of), then > spoke about "left wing" governments in general and > then said "and don't get me started on > communists". Her train of thought seems to suggest > a lineage between New Labour and Communists. I, > rightly, pointed out that this was a bit of a leap > and she was being silly. > > Also, I was being flippant. You know, as indicated > by the winky thing. Trust me David, I knew full well you were being flippant. I can take a bit of teasing from someone I know, even if I am not sure that you connect my user name with my face. You didn't quite get the point I was making, which was that where UDT was suggesting that right wingers lack of intelligence explained their economic policies, I was suggesting that the extreme left wing communist approach to running economies was hardly demonstrating intelligence either. I wasn't actually suggesting new labour were anything like communists. I can't see me ever voting labour (though the mess the Tories are making with the NHS is testing my patience no end), but the truth is the main political parties in this country are way closer to each other in policy than either are to the extreme ends of either right or left wing. I don't agree the the initial hypothesis of the paper that Huguenot quoted which started this thread, because I think it expressed a rather black and white view of what right wing actually means. To me it felt rather like the Daily Mail view of the world or perhaps BNP, and I think "right wing" encompasses a rather wider spectrum of views than that.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: > USA had a few recessions during Labour's term in > power. So it is absurd to suggest that Gordon was > lucky because of a world boom. I think you have taken me a little too literally. Although I still think the economic situation pan Europe for the first 10 years Labour were in power was quite stable compared to other periods - certainly than the post credit crunch years. As for absurd... end to boom and bust - now that was absurd. > As for grades inflation this phenomena is > happening around the world and not confined to the > UK. Yes, but the point I was making is that if you talk to employers and university lectures they can't tell you where all the extra money Labour spent on education has gone - the real standards have not been increasing and with all that extra money spent, we really should have something to show for it beyond a bunch of inflated grades. You said it was a worthwhile investment - well where was the return on that investment??

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > indiepanda Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Whereas Labour did such a great job > overspending > > for years when the economy was booming, hmm? > > > > Even my right wing parents taught me saving a > bit > > of money for a rainy day was a good idea. > > I think Labour was right to renew schools and > hospitals. > > Since when did the Tories had enough money to put > away? I don't believe I claimed they did. I also don't think that Labour having had money to put away was anything much to do with what they did whilst in power - there was a worldwide boom at the time, and though Brown tried to take credit for a lot of things, I think even he would have struggled to take credit for all of that. Come to that Brown claimed he had put an end to boom and bust and if making that sort of claim isn't lacking in intelligence I don't know what is. As for investing in schools, I'm not convinced education standards rose under Labour so their money spent on schools doesn't strike me as having achieved much. Employers and university lecturers have been telling everyone for years that the quality of people coming out of secondary education doesn't match up to their grades, the crazy grade inflation isn't helping students. I'll grant you waiting lists in hospitals came down and I would definitely support the increases in pay given to nurses. However, my general view is all governments tend to make political decisions with a large financial impact that frequently ignore the economic reality and I've seen no evidence that left wing governments are any better than right wing ones on that front. (Don't get me started on how economically successful the communist states were)

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Probably explains why the Tory's economic policies > is so thin on details. Whereas Labour did such a great job overspending for years when the economy was booming, hmm? Even my right wing parents taught me saving a bit of money for a rainy day was a good idea.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought the basic premise of this study - i.e. > that prejudiced = right wing, to be a bit of a > basic flaw. 'Far right', then they may have > point, but to that I'd say far left people are > equally moronic. > > But maybe that's because I actually believe that > far left and far right are actually pretty close > to each other. Almost like the political landscape > is a big circle. Which is why a lot of BNP > support comes from traditional Labour voters. I agree, I can remember studying politics for a term at university and the observation being made that it was pretty hard to tell the difference between far right countries like Nazi germany and far left communist states in the way people were treated, especially any minority groups. I think suggesting prejudice is linked to lack of intelligence would be a rather less controversial statement than suggesting it's right wing = lack of intelligence.

It's a difficult one - it should really be the makers that pay, but I gather the company has gone bankrupt. From what I have read, it sounds like the company quite deliberately used industrial grade silicone to cut costs and when inspected deliberately showed the inspectors some samples that were using the correct grade. Perhaps random tests should have been carried out of those supplied to clinics rather than just ones at the factory? In the event of deliberate deceit that's the way to find out about it. I am not sure it would be reasonable to have expected the clinics to carry out their own tests to find out they were not the quality they should have been, they should have been able to rely on the tests carried out by the inspectors, and if you accept that view, it seems a bit unfair for them to have to pay - some will just not be large enough to be able to afford to and I wouldn't mind betting their insurers will find a way of wriggling out of paying up. Part of me thinks the NHS shouldn't have to pick up the cost for fixing cosmetic surgery as the individual chose to have the surgery, putting themselves at some risk (albeit they didn't appreciate how much). However, if you take that view to the limit, it's been well known smoking is carcinogenic for many years, but the NHS doesn't refuse to treat smoking related cancers. And most (I know not all) cancers are in part related to lifestyle factors - so where do you draw the line? I think ensuring women have the right to get them removed via the NHS if their clinic cannot and chasing the EU / French for compensation is the right route to go. However, I don't think it's the NHS's job to provide replacement implants in the case of those who had the surgery done for cosmetic reasons privately. Perhaps that's where the clinics should come in. - they fund the cost of the replacement implants and the NHS deal with the surgery to remove the dangerous ones, replacing them only where someone is willing to pay for it. I wonder if this will make people consider more carefully the risks involved in cosmetic surgery?

So would you interpret this kind of right wing to be BNP voters or Conservative Party voters? Am inclined to agree if it's the former.

Bit further afield, but if you drive, the farmers market in Blackheath is every Sunday 10-2 and has a good range of fruit / veg / meat / fish / bakery etc. There's also a weekly farmers market in Brockley on Saturdays, was a little bit smaller than the Blackheath one when I last went, but it was more recently established so might have grown since then. It was still worth a visit. http://www.brockleymarket.com/news/

Whilst I am all for individuals accepting some personal responsibility for their financial decisions I think the banks were sailing close to the wind and have no real excuse for not realizing it. Lending people 125% of the value of the house they are buying or 5, 6 times their salary is just irresponsible and helped to fuel the housing boom.

Whoops, you're quite right Jah. Actually... thinking on... why do we even have a House of Lords? In a democracy why do we have a group of unelected individuals able to slow down or stop legislation being passed. If we really need a second house, I'd far rather it was elected than the present situation. No one should be given power for life.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems to me the K has been removed so the govt. > can be SEEN to be tackling debt and the causes of > debt - which they're not - but in tabloid-speak > they are - so we'll all sleep a little safer. > > Will Sir Ian McKellen lose his if he's in a > spectacularly shit play? Or Sir Brucie if he > fluffs his gags one more time? While I agree that removing Fred's knighthood is hardly solving the banking industries problem, I think comparing the mess he presided over and was handsomely remunerated for to a poor play is an unfair comparison (to be fair - I suspect you were being a flippant!) If I see McKellen in a rubbish play I've lost an evening of my life and the cost of the ticket / travel etc. But the costs of bailing out RBS has hit all of us whether we have done business with them or not. To be honest I think the whole honours system is crazy. I'd like to see people rewarded through for doing something other than a job that they are already well rewarded for - people who have done great work for charity for example. How people life Jeffery Archer kept their knighthoods after being to prison is beyond me, Goodwin's far from the only one to have brought the system into disrepute....

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does he really deserve to lose his knighthood - to > be treated like the traitor Anthony Blunt. > > I think its wrong. And a dangerous precedent. > There was no intent to do.wrong. He was knighted for services to banking... and his "expertise" led to billions of ?s of taxpayers money being spent on bailing out the bank he built. I can't believe it's taken them this long to strip him of his knighthood.

I don't quite understand why she is getting special treatment from the council because she is old - doesn't that make her old enough to know better? She can't be that infirm if she was capable of arranging to have the work done in the first place. In any case, even if she wasn't aware of the rules, she's clearly gone ahead and done something without considering your feelings which should have been evident to her based on the work you put into the garden. However, since she has been abusive to the council I am not sure it's really worth getting into a battle with her about it. I certainly wouldn't suggest ripping up the concrete on her side, that would seem to be looking for a fight even though your neighbour is in the wrong. But doing as the council suggested and removing the concrete box on your side so you can replant the garden seems reasonable to me.

I think the queue only runs to 5 people on hold at once - that's the position I am usually in when I finally get a ringing tone instead of an engaged tone. I just think there are not enough appointments for the number of people wanting them, it's not the phone system or the number of people answering them that is the real issue

Shame she's so far away now (not in miles but travel time) - agree she's the best dentist I ever had too.

SueOrr0103 - see this link to guidance from the BMA re medical reports. http://www.bma.org.uk/employmentandcontracts/fees/insurecomp.jsp?page=2#.TyKdYW8U11c The report should be returned to the insurer within 20 working days - sounds like DMC haven't met that target.

I did manage to get seen today, but I was calling repeatedly from 8-8.25 to do so, I was rather surprised they actually could see me by the time they answered, by then it's usually a non starter.