Blah Blah

Drugs taken in combination with others behave differently than on their own. This is why there is no use comparing those who deliberately cheat with combinations of drugs over those being perscribed single drugs for underlying conditions. Asthma, it has to be remembered, kills people. And athletes at that level are putting huge stress on their bodies. Personally, I trust the medical professionals who draw up the rules to make the right call on these issues.

The council leader is always drawn from the elected council. It has always been that way.

The project began under the previous Libdem Council so it's not just Labour councillors who are poor on this. Lambeth council are going much further and ignoring tenant/ leaseholder consultation altogether. The government has promised increased tenant/ leaseholder powers on the process and decisions made and I think the governments ruling on this is the start of that process. It's one thing to regenerate an area or estate, it's another when you lock out sitting tenants and leaseholders from the plans and benefits of that regeneration.

Did you actually read the OP Grok. Where does it say the OP hasn't tried to find a contact? She was simply asking for a heads up on the right person to go to, not asking for people to look up numbers for her. You really are an ass.

Was disaapointed at council leader Peter John's response to the decision on the news last night. On what planet do the council think it ok to not give leaseholders the market value of their homes?

I agree with you both. The centre ground is broadly where the electorate have always stood, or the swing vote that decides elections at least. The Libdems I feel, are going to struggle though, in the short term. More interesting to watch will be UKIP without Farage at the helm. Farage is bigger than UKIP, and a lot of UKIP voters were voting for him rather than the party. I can't personally see him keeping his oar out for long either. As for Labour and the Tories, I think they both have trouble ahead. May is going to struggle to keep her party together through Brexit as much as Corbyn is going to struggle to stay at the helm of Labour. And we have no way of knowing what the electorate are going to make of it all. President Trump is even looking like a distinct possibility now too. I half wonder as well, if this induced crisis over the EU may come to be a bigger crisis than the 2008 crash.

I think you are spot on Jenny. History always repeats and we never learn. UKIP and the SNP have been around for a long time. It's no accident that the swings to them comes in the aftermath of a huge financial crash. In turn, Cameron pampered to those sentiments to win the last election. And it can be argued that by not pampering to those sentiments, Corbyn will never win the next election. It's not reocket science.

DaveR dismissed a view as horseshit without offering any insight into why. He got the reposte he deserved for it. I don't understand why you are seeking to now make something out of it. You are over reacting. Really you are.

It's not like you LM to pick such frivolous fights. DaveR has shown no regard for the impact of this government's policies on the poorest before. I don't thnk Lordship has said anything out of turn.

There is also that saying that any ideology that fails to reign in it's extremes and excesses, becomes a corrupt one. That also is as true for the left as it is for the right.

To be fair Dave, every new government is a reaction to the last. So yes, the success of Blair was a reaction to Thatcher, just as the election of Corbyn as leader is a reaction to Blair. I still think and have said it many times, that the overton window doesn't and hasn't ever shifted much either way. The main parties still win elections by winning the centre ground on the whole. It's also why we get the parties and government we deserve, for better or worse. I also wouldn't call a comment like "No point in claiming advancement if much of your population has very poor [or no] accommodation or even not enough food." horseshit either. This is the reality of the impact of cuts made by this government, and some people really are suffering in ways I hope you never have to. I think most people rethink (or even thnk for the first time) their stance on politics Otta, during their twenties. It's easy to be idealistic and revolutionary when you are a student (and I've been there too), it's not so easy to be that when you have a family to raise and support. I'm just watching Dispatches on Momentum. It shows what I was saying about indvicuals and their links. But to be fair, the labour party will (and has) expelled anyone who shows support for the AWL. Momentum also has a rule that no person who is not a member of the Labour party can hold a position, however, Jill Mountford has been expelled, but still sits on the steering committee. This is the problem Momentum will have if they are seeking official affiliation to the labour party down the line (which I think they are). Thay will have to clean up their ranks. Some concerning issues around data collection there too.

That's an interesting perspective Otta, because for many of who lived through Thatcher, Blair and New Labour were saviours. That is, until the Iraq War, as you say. Just on Momentum. What do you know in reality about Momentum? I ask that because, as much as the media like to protray Momentum as some hard left top down organisation, it actually isn't. Local Momenuntum groups are self managing - there is no central office mantra in that orgaisation. There is a steering committee, but that's about it. On the whole, Momentum is a local campaigning affair, and most of the people who attend those meetings are people with campaign interests in local or trade union issues, the same issues you and I care about, housing, jobs, etc. Those people also knocked on doors for the Labour party to help get Sadiq elected etc. So there is a lot of nonsense written about Momentum, not based in any kind of reality. The problems seem to be with a few specific local Momentum groups (who are definitely behaving in a militant way) and with one or two specific steering group members, like Sam Tarry - who has a persona that is chilling at times. In other words, finding the hard left, or muppets within that is down to a few specific individuals. So the issue (or rather worry) there would be how close those individuals get to government. I tend to think that without Momentum, they would find another way anyway.

I think the last round of letters was sent two or three weeks ago? We had ours anyway.

Seconded nunun. No reason for not registering for the electoral register, and the council give plenty of oppurtunity to do so before they send someone out to your door.

Crossrail has cost a fortune but undoubtedly will be of huge benefit to London. HS2 will benefit who exactly? More commuters to London.

But there is no evidence of overuse. That is just an assumption by the OP. All of the medications prescribed are for conditions from Asthma to Hayfever. Pretty normal stuff. But they are required permission because they contain trace elements of substances that could fail a drugs test. That's all there is to it.

But where is the evidence of overuse of medicine? The leaked report shows legitimate use of treatments for things like allergies and Asthma etc, permission for which has to be gained in advance of treatment being used. Even athletes have medical conditions that need treatment from time to time. That is clearly very different to misuse of banned substances for performance enhancing purposes. You are making an assumption in your OP that just isn't true.

Electoral registration is important for councils because it determines the level of funding they get. So I can absolutely understand why the council would door knock at unregistered addresses (and they have done this in the past anyway). Sp I would say that if you want the council to provide services, help them to get the maximum central funding they can by registering to vote.

I completely agree with that Lordship, which is why I would argue that governemnt investment in housing for example would be a better use of money than HS2. It's not that investment in rail infrastructure in itself is a poor use of money, it isn't. But HS2 is kind of like putting all the eggs in one basket with only limited return. Plus the belief that state investment is bad and private investment is good is behind much of government policy.

It's a non story imo. Bitter Russians who DID cheat with performance enhancing drugs show how low they really are by trying to discredit athletes who actually win medals because they are better than everyone else shocker. Common sense tells anyone that all of the named athletes have given drugs tests in pretty much every competition they compete in and athletes can be tested at ANY time during training periods too. In fact, isn't that why the Russians got caught?

Definitely sounds targetted, but could also be mistaken identity too. Ditto Robert's post. Even an innocuous road 'rage' incident could be the motive. It doesn't take much these days for some people to behave bad sadly.

No I wouldn't for the reason Lordship gave you. "UK Government investment as a % of GDP 2015 14% - an all time low." That is the whole point of the discussion. It IS at an all time low.

No it is not correct LM. Investment dropped after the crash as you would expect (it did all over the world). It recovered a little (by ?10 billion annually) by 2010, and in fact, most of the recovery after the crash had come by 2010. Ths is why it is a myth that Osborne is responsible for all the recovery since 2008. Practically nothing has moved forward under his policies. Fluctuation by just ?10 billion over six years is a woefull performance by any comparison. All the charts are out there for you to look at. Even after the recessions of the 80s and 90s, there was no period of flatlining like this. And as I said, Germany, USA and France have all recovered on investment markedly. We haven't. Lordship has seconded everything I have said on that and gone further and explained how Osborne has messed it up (by degearing investment). ****crossed posts with Lordship, but agree of course.

And that is the view of most same economists Lordship, as you say. This area of economics is where Osborne has been very weak and I struggle to find another chancellor in history who had less understanding of or less wllingness to act (as I'm not sure of which Osborne is guilty of) in this area. Investment is a key engine of the economy we work under. It has to be a vital measure of those who manage it for us.

The ONS publish detailed figures on investment and breakdowns. It fell to ?60 billion annually after the 2008 crash and hasn't got above ?80 billion since. That gap of ?20 billion over 8 years represents a flatlining of investment. You would have to go back to 1990 to see investment flatlining, and even then it only did so for three years. Germany, France and the US have all recovered better than us on investment growth, Germany especially well (which puts to bed any idea that growth figures fuelled mainly by household consumption, really means any kind of tangible growth). I will find a chart to demonstrate that.