Blah Blah

Think again about what they were saying uncleglen. It was obviously a conversation trying to make sense of the recent upsurge in racism and xenophobia. You'd probably be the first to have such a conversation if it were you and from some of your posts on here you seem to be only too willing to support that xenophobia.

Western governments are short-termist because the electorate are short-termist, i.e what can you do for ME now, rather what can you do for the country long term. It's been that way for the last 30 years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of nuclear power, the reality is that a state owned French company is building this, with Chinese money and we will pay double the market rate for the energy it produces. However did we get into a place where we can not build things for ourselves anymore, where other nations profit from our essential needs at double the cost to us, the people? Finally, when a nation causes a collapse in steel prices by illegally dumping subsidised steel, you don't reward them with contracts to build things like HS2. We are more than capable of building our own nuclear reactor or HS2, but of course, we have a government in power that doesn't believe in national borrowing for anything, yet wants us all to borrow to buy houses!

I would think rural areas have lost younger generations who have moved to find jobs, homes they can afford etc. The new registration rules will make things interesting too. We might see some differences in University towns in some elections. Who knows what the Corbyn effect will be - it's all guesswork at the moment. Next years local elections might be an indicator.

50 years ago, pretty much every schoolboy carried a pen knife. It's not the carrying of a knife that is the issue, but the reasons for carrying it. DuncanW is correct when looking at success rates vs different kinds of intervention. Most kids who carry knives are copying the culture they find themselves in (one of hierarchy and fear). They aren't really aware of the implications of law and killing someone. Bullies used to just beat you up if you didn't hand over your dinner money. Now they threaten you with a knife if you don't hand over your iphone, and so the cycle continues. People get stabbed everywhere in London. So comments about Peckham as though knife crime only happens there are not helpful. Nor is any other stereotyping, and that ridulous line from uncleglen (clearly a troll) of underclass vs educated class. With young people, the earlier the intervention the better, but it's hard to maintain if the wider culture doesn't change too. No easy solutions.

Point taken Otta. But even on a religious view Ridgely, not all muslim cultures are the same any more than all Christian ones are. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

There is racism found in EVERY ethnic group Ridgely. Why would that suprise you? And all racism is learned, which is why some cultures harbour more racism than others. An individual hurling racist abuse in public at anyone is no more than a disgraceful example of a human being, be they black, white, chinese, muslim, christian, or whatever. There is no significance in who is being racist and to whom, beyond working out ways to eradicate that racism, which may or may not have a cultural aspect. You do however make the classic mistake of seeing Afirca as a continent of little difference. Africa is as big as Europe with as many countries in it as Europe. We may be predominently white but you have some grasp of how different say Russia is to the UK, or Italy, or Poland etc. Apply the same logic to the multitude of countries that make up that huge continent of Africa. There's your answer. The culture of Senegal is very different to that of Eritrea, or Somalia, or South Arica, or Morocco. Being black doesn't make Africans all the same.

I don't disgree with you Dave regarding the swings that gave both Thatcher and Blair landslide majorities, but part of that 'landslide' was delivered by the type of electoral system we have. It's estimated that as little as 300,000 votes in traditionally English marginals actually decide workable majorities, that's out of how many eligible voters?. Hence the constant boundary changes by every government. Seats in Parliament have never been reflective of true voting share. So your words that 'millions of voters who chose Labour when it was led by Blair, but then chose the Tories led by Cameron over Ed' just isn't true. And Labour actually increased it's voting share on 2010 but lost seats. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/upshot/how-labour-gained-votes-but-still-lost-seats.html?_r=0 I think to be fair ????s, you are not typical of a Labour voter. Whilst Corbyn does take the Labour party away from the centre ground, the Conservatives at present certainly aren't filling it. I think we have yet to see who steps in there and if the Lib Dems are smart about it, it could be just the stroke of luck they need to get back in the main. I'm not offended by Corbyn (I voted for him because a case does have to be made for the hardships of welfare reform and low wages, state intervention is needed in housing and some other areas where the free market does not deliver fairness). BUT the sticking point for me is McDonnel. I think he comes accross as weasly. I want a chancellor that sees capitalism as good for the economy, but finds a fairer way to make it work, rather than the extreme form we have at present. I don't think McDonnel is the one to deliver that and imo it is he, more than Corbyn, that will cost Labour.

DaveR Wrote: > which is exactly the message that Corbyn and his > supporters are giving to the millions of voters > who chose Labour when it was led by Blair, but > then chose the Tories led by Cameron over Ed. A > perfect strategy for getting back into government. > Not. I think the SNP took those Labour votes Dave, not the Tories :D The Tories would have a much bigger majority if there had been any significant swing in Labour voters to them. Some interesting analysis here. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/election-2015-who-voted-for-whom-labour-conservatives-turnout Totally agree regarding strategy though. Doomed to failure at present.

The clue might have been in 'we will make ?12bn in further cuts but aren't telling you which benefits will be cut'! The whole steel plant thing is a scandal esp as we could have kept them in business building rails for HS2. Shades of Atlas Shrugged there. It's a bit like Conway shipping kerb stones from China isn't it. Where is the backing for British business? We happily borrow trilions to bail out the city, but let the last remnants of industry go to the wall.

And Cameron DID say he WOULDN'T cut child tax credits (to match Labours pledge). She voted for someone who lied about something that really makes a difference to her. But (according to Daily Politics today) it looks as though the move is going to be blocked by the Lords, because it wasn't part of the manifesto, so Osbourne might be forced to change something. Apparently 71 Tory MPs sit in marginal seats where this policy might have an adverse effect, and they are worried.

Also the only way to know if there's a chip is from a scanner. Hope he recovers and finds his owner.

Good post bobbsy. There is too much emphasis on demonising modes of transport without really considering why people need or choose those forms of transport. I too hate subterfuge and just wish we stopped knee jerk single issue policies and looked instead at overall strategies. Traffic flow is as important a part of any strategy as safety is.

Also I don't think anyone has ever said that everyone should cycle to be fair. The push has always been to get MORE people cycling, because that's seen as a good move away from congestion. And it makes sense as many cars/vehicles have just one person in them. Smart cars were part of the effort to address that too. But the reality is that a car is the size it is because of all the other occasions, where items and friends/ family have to be transported. It's an all round vehicle, and the expense of such things (esp insurance) don't make having a selection of transport options available, cost effective to most people. Occasional users of vehicles do use schemes like Zip car, because that's cheaper than keeping a vehicle all year round, but it's no good for someone needing a vehicle 2-3 times a week or more. My frustration with public transport in London it the time it takes to get anywhere. I cycle on journeys that I can (and I don't work far away so that includes going to work).

Agreed on the train thing. Mnay areas of South London are poorly served by rail infrastructure. At least we have a few stations nearby. Many areas don't. But tube infrastructure is really the issue. If we can build Crossrail, we can give South London better tube coverage - especially given how those on lower wages are being driven further out.

I don't understand why anyone is attacking cycle netwrok provision in ED as there isn't really anything significant to speak of. We have no cycle super highway and many of the cycle routes are on residential roads. It's not really an issue. There are however lots of road humps and traffic calming measures, which were not put there because of cyclists, but because of drivers unable to adhere to speed limits or drive according to conditions and common sense safety. I'll be the first to say there are too many humps and I've criticised the blanket 20mpr limit too, but let's not confuse cycling safety with measures to make drivers stick to rules of the highway.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-04-how-has-cycling-grown-in-london.pdf "In some locations, cyclists account for a significant proportion of the traffic. Cycle traffic is rising fast on the central London Thames road crossings, and counts carried out in the City of London in October 2012 found that cyclists accounted for around a third of the vehicular traffic in the morning and evening peaks." https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2015/06/london-cycling-now-the-highest-on-record-as-rate-of-deaths-and The rush hour journeys were measured in the City and Central London and it is those figures that justify the spending on cycle infrastructure in those areas. So my point was that Scooting is quite wrong to suggest the cycling infrastructure is carried out disproportionately to need. He seems also to have forgotten that Crossrail, one of the most expensive transport infrastructure projects ever is ongoing and that new additions like DLR are relatively recent too. So there is plenty of investment in transport and it's ongoing.

27% of all journeys in London during rush hour are by cycle Scooting, so I don't know how you can say that cycling is only for a small percentage.

Haven't been there IlonaM but will add it to my list next time go there too.

I second Loz post. We too have a routine (around the kids) and work. Just on tumble dryers. They do eat a lot of power. Our home still had a little pantry in an extended kitchen when we bought it. And we turned that into a drying space by installing a low powered extraction fan in the window. So we hang washing in there (straight out of the machine), turn on the fan, and it's pretty much dry by the next day. I'm pretty sure the same would work in a small bathroom. Much cheaper alternative to a tumble dryer in the winter.

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you been to the Sainte chappelle? > Breathtakingly beautiful stained glass. Seconded.

If you want a not so touristy attraction, check out the Catacombs!

Yes TTIP is worrying. It will open the way for NHS privatisation from a country that has the most expensive healthcare in the West. There have been recent examples of corporations buying up drug patents in the USA and then increasing the price of those drugs by up to 10 times. And it's alarming to note that in looking for solutions to the cost of NHS care, the government have looked to how things work in the USA, rather than looking at other European countries that have state and private healthcare combined. It's clear to me which model the Government prefers. There is sense in Mcdonnell opposing Osbourne's bill. Borrowing for consumption and investment are not the same thing and Osbourne is trying to say they are. The amatuerism from him is on blurring the lines of good economics. We don't borrow to buy food, but we do borrow to buy a house. That makes sense because the house is an asset. The food is consumption. In the same vein, a business will borrow to build a factory and buy plant machinery. They are assets against the loan. So when Mcdonnell argues that removing the ability for a government to borrow for investment and capital projects is a bad idea, he is right. What is amaturish from both him and Corbyn though, is the way they go about things.

I think anyone joining the property ladder post 2000 is pretty doomed unless they have the kind of job that is transferable to another part of the country. We bought in 1997, with parental help (on both sides) and were able to get a three bedroomed property, large enough for our family. We couldn't do it now. Part of problem is the desperation for first time buyers to buy anything, just to get a foothold. Even fix-me-uppers are overpriced now. I think the consensus is to look further out. Useful calculator from the Guardian here. Shows just how ridiculous the situtaion has become. http://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2015/sep/02/unaffordable-country-where-can-you-afford-to-buy-a-house

No mention of the huge cuts to local authorities from government then?

Something came up on my facebook about this. It seems to be affecting the closure of three libraries, not just the Carnegie and I believe there was a public meeting last night? Every time I go into Peckham Library with my kids, every available study space, table is occupied, often with young people, for some of whom the library is probably the only quiet space they have to do homework. Every computer is always in use. Libraries are vitally important for many people.