dc

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a point of information, I don't think that > either the Blair or the Brown Governments got rid > of any grammar schools. However, I am in favour of > comprehensive rather than grammar schools. Indeed. It is an ironic point (upon which I'm happy to be contradicted) that more grammar schools were approved for conversion to comprehensives under a certain Margaret Thatcher when she was Education Secretary than by any other person who has held that position.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > VCD Athletic? > Is it me or does that sound like a sports related STD? You're not alone. Vickers Crawley Dartford. Started as a works team for the Vickers armaments factory in 1916. The factory finally closed in 1985 and is now a 'retail park'. VCD are currently bottom of the Ryman Premier with 4 points from 11 starts.

In a single bound Dulwich jumped from 10th to 3rd in the Ryman Premier last night with an away win against Met Police and other matches producing favourable results. Still early days - just a quarter way through the season.

Of course it's annoying, but the decision should be looked at in context given that charging for this service now seems to be standard across London and beyond. Sutton, the only London borough controlled by Cllr Barber's party, charges ?25 for 3 items, then ?5 for any item beyond that - so ?60 for 10 items rather than ?16. At the higher end, Barnet charges ?56.60 for one item, Richmond ?50 for five...

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unless I missed something, I never saw anything > that I thought was out of order or told me > anything about these people that would help me to > identify them. I don't think the concern was about identifying someone per se. There was a disclosure relating to personal sensitive data as set out in the Data Protection Act 1998.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich & West Norwood. Village ward is just about > average for incomes etc and it's the better off > 8th of the constituency. I'm not sure this is correct. GLA figures published last year showed Village ward to have the 6th highest median income in London putting it in the top 1% of wards across the capital on this measure (page 4): https://goo.gl/y12ruZ For what it's worth Dulwich & West Norwood does has the 11th highest proportion of residents in the country with a degree or equivalent: https://goo.gl/64WUOl

HappyFamily Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Im afraid James and others in "Dulwich & West > Norwood" will have been disadvantaged by the > previous Gerrymandering by the labour party (key > being that the East Dulwich Tory/libdem district > is merely swamped by the lumping in of West > Norwood which gives the easy Labour vote). This is not correct. The change from Dulwich to Dulwich and West Norwood when, for the first time in a boundary review process borough boundaries were crossed, was in the review that reported in 1995. That was under a Tory government. So even if gerrymandering of the process was possible (which it really isn't given the independence of the Boundary Commissions) it could not have been done by Labour. That review took out wards to the north of Dulwich (ie Peckham and strongly Labour) and added wards from Lambeth. Two of those at the time were Tory, one LibDem and one Labour. The 'notional' Labour majority of the new seat compared to the old one went down from 2056 to 1800 odd. Labour actually fought the proposals tooth and nail (to no effect) as they reduced Labour seats across Lambeth and Southwark from five to four. Later changes merely reflected a relative increase in the population of Lambeth compared to Southwark and changes to the local 'ward' boundaries in both boroughs (wards are not allowed to be split between parliamentary seats).

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two - these constituencies are often small(er) than rural ones > (population, not area) so there are more of them. > So a smaller electorate can elect more MPs (per > 100,000 head of population) This is not correct. The average electorate across England is 72,400 and there is no difference in the 'target size' or Electoral Quota, to give the official term, of urban and rural constituencies set out by the Boundary Commission at the commencement of each boundary review process. There is usually, on average, a lower turnout of electors in urban constituencies so it may appear that it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP but that is a statistical issue not one of any structural bias in favour of urban areas.

You don't need a polling card to vote. Searchable Polling Station locations on @lb_southwark website here: http://bit.ly/1EZnXgc

It's complicated but the last couple of pages of this thread provide some background: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/margate-v-dulwich-hamlet-7-45pm-30-04-2015.334409/page-6 Really bad that a large number of Hamlet fans - and many others no doubt - have been put to not inconsiderable expense and huge inconvenience by the manifest failings of the FA and Ryman League in this matter.

I think - having fiddled with the PH website - that it's ?1.50 per online booking not per ticket. If you think you might go a few times in the next year then membership is worthwhile and 'pays for itself' (you then get no booking fees and ?2 off all future tickets). There are also deals like 10% off purchases at the bar/cafe and 25% off at GBK - inter alia - if you want to take advantage of that sort of thing.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have just got back from seeing the first film. The > cinema looks great. Me too. Nothing at all not to like really.

Apropos not very much, I do like this from the legend that is Chris Hoy: Chris Hoy thinks that the day Chris Hoy refers to Chris Hoy in the third person is the day that Chris Hoy disappears up his own a***. Chris Hoy on being asked what Chris Hoy thought of Chris Hoy

So, Marmora Man, what's your new forum name going to be given that your current, now out of date, one was determined by your location, location, location?

Oddono's - there's a sign on the window.

Live results being updated here: London Elects Website So far it looks like opinion polling accurate with Labour gaining a couple of GLA constituency seats and out-polling the Tories on the London-wide vote but Boris ahead in the Mayoral. The updating is suspended when the area counts reach 90% - then we have to wait for the returning officer to announce.

I note that HAHC has a "Chief Executive Officer". As the man from the FT would say: "poor returns in a positive trading environment". ;-)

I'm going for: 70p - ?1.40 - ?1.65 ?1.40 - ?1.50 - ?3.85

This was discussed on a previous thread in which there's quite a bit of background info: Previous Lordship Lane Station thread

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't get the US v UK angle on this. If something similar happened here in 2010, the British government would be equally agitated. That may be true in 2010 with the sort of news/media environment we now live in. But remember Piper Alpha - an American owned rig that blew up in the North Sea over 20 years ago with the loss of 167 lives? The way the aftermath of that disaster was approached - with a focus on learning lessons rather than apportioning blame (including the Cullen Enquiry) - led to far-reaching reforms and improvements in safety that may not have been possible if a 'witch-hunt' had been pursued. The process was also unique of its time in that it resulted in the setting up of what was effectively a UK government sanctioned trades union under Thatcher - the OILC. Maybe a similar approach today in the US would be appropriate? (bearing in mind that BP are committed to paying for the clean-up anyway). Unless anyone really takes seriously the idea that they will continue to block oil extraction from such deep wells in the future?

Given that Inkmaiden said on 17th May that she had - "asked a member of staff last week when the pool was re-opening and he said due to some problems they've had it will be August at the earliest" - it seems a bit odd that Cllr Barber seems to be blaming the new Cabinet Member for Leisure for a delay that had clearly been factored in before they had even been appointed! Nero makes a good case here.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HOP does NOT have a tube service, its the Overground which currently runs next to and in conjunction with Southern trains. The Southern train stations New Cross Gate to West Croydon have changed from the previous Southern trains franchise to London Overground, so please do not say HOP is on the tube as it ain't! Whilst the new ELL is branded as 'London Overground' the old ELL used to be part of the tube and it is now run by TfL who run the tube. London Overground is run to tube standards - ie stations staffed at all times that trains run etc. Compare some of the other lines (North London Line, Goblin etc) as they were run - as Cinderella service lines tacked on to franchises - with how they are now under TfL and I think you would find that they are effectively tube lines. More of the 'Underground' is overground than underground anyway. (Can't help feeling that the word 'wombling' should have appeared somewhere in that last sentence).

Thanks sliding_doors - I travel from North Dulwich and whilst it might be easy for me to scrawl "minus 2 minutes" on your excellent timetable, it simply won't look as nice as your version so can you do me one please? And I am aware that irony doesn't work very well in prose so I'm going to have to point out that I'm not being serious or maybe just unleash one of these: ;-)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out of the UK population of 60m, only 19m are working. That's way off. The actual figure is 28.83 million: Labour Market Statistics

David C - I agree with MM's analysis (I'm rather surprised to say) although I'm coming from the other wing. The moment that Labour deliberately cedes the centre ground - which it already has to some extent as exemplified by the drop in votes of key social groups in 2010 - is the moment it opts to walk back into the wilderness of empty, impotent, political gesture. I lived through it in the 80s and most of the 90s and any number of marches and protests and pickets and boycotts made no difference to the voiceless people that Labour was founded to speak up for. 1997-2010 saw the greatest redistribution of income from the top 10% to the bottom 10% of any OECD country - you David C have cited the evidence yourself in other threads - and the fact that we even bothered to try puts us in a very exclusive club. The 'problem' of course is in ownership of assets that has rocketed in higher income deciles fuelled by the move towards home ownership stoked by property inflation and resulting in the establishment across a broader range of those income deciles of inheritable capital assets (not of itself a bad thing of course). This has however, barely changed for people stuck on lower incomes and that is why the removal of such positive measures like child trust funds, that would have at least established some sort of enhanced asset base for those on the lowest incomes as they enter higher education or work, is such a regressive step by the new government (as is the proposed removal of the EMA which has helped students from lower income groups stay in education to their longer term benefit). Schools in this constituency have moved from a position in 1996 where, at some, fewer than 1 in 10 pupils were obtaining 5 A*-C GCSEs to a position now where every pupil is expected to achieve and be able to hold their own when it comes to jobs, higher education and wider opportunities. The removal of 30 year old 'temporary' prefab classrooms and outside toilets in local schools apparently only needed a government that saw state education as a priority and invested accordingly. The brand new and refurbished schools across the constituency are superb and each sends out a message in its own way that education is important, that it should be valued and that the staff and pupils in those schools deserve the very best. So don't be downcast DC. You have just had three terms of a Labour government - the best we achieved before was a single full term. The NHS and state education have been transformed for the better and the language even the Tories are using is more our language than the language of Thatcherism (remember Section 28). So get involved and don't park yourself in a political cul-de-sac. I've been there and believe me, 18 years was an incredibly long time to put up with a government that had almost no interest in our public services. Maybe you should spend a bit more time 'on the knocker' and a little less on the Forum to enhance your perspective of what Labour has achieved and why people voted so strongly for Labour in our local constituency? And MM - I agree that the question is HOW we provide for the weaker etc but it's also whether there is a will to even bother in the first place.