Huguenot

I don't believe so, I last answered this question in Lithuania about 7 years ago. I think that the UK stopped being food sufficient before that. Too many people, too little space. We're in a global economy whether we like it or not.

I never feel happier than when a tentative poster makes a foray into the dirty dirty world of a lounge debate :)

*chortles*

What a thankless job local road planning has. The second that traffic calming is formally proposed this thread will be choc-a-bloc with motorists screaming about damage to their vehicles, and residents squealing about either the damage to their foundations caused by lorries and humps, or the lack of parking space created by chicanes. Even for sight-lines at junctions, an expanded pavement will give you a massive outcry about the consequences on parking space. Talk about a no win.

An entirely unexpected show of tired tolerance from huncamunca... DulwichMoan Yesterday, 09:22AM You Don't Pay Road Tax, But You All Think You Deserve Your Own Cycle Lane? You Like Too Go Through Red Lights, But If We Motorist Hit You Its Our Fault? I Think Cyclist's Are The Biggest Accident On Our Roads. Posted by: huncamunca Yesterday, 09:33AM oh do piss off

It is Brenda, but the point is that as more of the population becomes educated they become more socially demanding. This means an end to sweatshop labour policies and China becomes less competitive on the world stage. Threat diminished. As the article Piersy discussed, the Chinese govt. is already turning a blind eye to labour disputes that would historically have been ruthlessly discouraged. They're supporting a wage inflation that narrows the wealth gap, but also undermines exports.

HAL, "The idea that Asian countries are manufacturing low cost, low complexity, commodity crap is completely misinformed." Sorry about this, I could have chosen my words more wisely than this cliche, what I was trying to do was talk about the products and services rolled out by a highly educated ingenious workforce, and those rolled out by grunt work. Whilst there are sophisticated, educated elements in China, they're numbered at around 60m out of a population of 1.3bn. Identifying an exception to this will not disprove this argument - the uneducated majority is still the powerhouse of their economy, and a very precarious model it is.

Well,that's because you're skim reading Mockney ;-)...SteveT made this observation about 10 posts ago: "The only way out as far as I can see is to produce goods which every one abroad wishes to buy, and when we have to compete with China Japan Korea Malaysia India Thailand USA etc. I do not see it happening until we can match them on price and quality."

I agree in principle, but I think JamesG is in the 'exploration' zone, and it'll be useful to find out more about, and experiment with, some other subjects or styles. It's called 'having fun' - rarely available to people who take things too seriously! ;-) I reckon JamesG will have a great deal of fun with a 50mm prime, just as I did, and Mockney did.

It's a shame that people are still getting bogged down in cursing Britain's lack of 'manufacturing' capability. Not only is it a fallacy that manufacturing is fundamental to a successful economy, it's also a fallacy that the UK is badly off in this respect, and that other economies are trumping us. As a percentage of the economy, 'industry' in developed countries represents 24% in the UK, 22% in the US, 19% in France and only 26% in Germany. So that makes us more industrial than most of our direct competitors. The thing to remember with China's 46% of 'industry' is that it's mostly generating low cost, low complexity, commodity crap from workers with salaries of 50 quid a month who are on the cusp of a revolution in rejection of these destructive labour policies. China has no 'service' economy because the workers are too poor to affford anything but bare essentials. Their outdated working practices can easily be outcompeted through automation, from which China has nothing to gain. In fact automation will lead in increasing amounts of 'free time' for everyone, so it's worth considering how we can create a business filling that free time for people around the world. Success for Britain will come from delivering services with a USP that builds upon our proven strength - this means finance, pharmaceuticals, technology, entertainment and communications. I can understand how unsettling that must be to a generation who prefer the black and white simplicities of manufacturing, but it's time to either change or fail. When you know that, you understand why Gordon was in with the City. An obsession with manufacturing is really about being unable to make the mental leap from the Britain best characerised by Carry On at Your Convenience

cross post

I think what JamesG was saying is that he's got a Canon with a 'starter' kit lens, and he would like to see if he can move on to more creative and engaging photographs with a new lens. If he's got a 40D, the he could have either one of the 'kit' lenses: theCanon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM If he's not an expert and if he's got either one of those then probably what he'd like is something that gives him a fundamentally different feel to the shot. In that sense I'd be trying to recommend a lens that can deliver a shallow depth of field (a small f number) and still be sharp. Because he's low on budget it'll be difficult to get a good one with a zoom facility, so that effectively means he's going to be in 'prime' territory. For that reason I'd plump firmly for the 50mm f1.4, and you can pick it up for around 250 quid. I'm guessing Jimbo will derive an extremely pleasurable 6 months getting immersed in portrait and indoor flash free photography, and he'll have a lens that he can treasure for ever!

I don't, must have missed that one! How about a Scottish restauarnt like... erm... erm...

Sorting out the Royal Mail sounds like a pretty challenging job. It's losing ?262m a year, and has an ?8bn pension deficit. The public want a universal service and village post offices, but are unwilling to pay for it. Workers don't want to work antisocial hours, don't want to carry heavy bags, want more people to cover their outrageous sickness rates, and want higher salaries. They don't want new technology and they don't want to be a 'service' business. Temporary staff steal anything that they think might have value, and occasionally have the nerve to rip the envelope open, steal the value item, and still deliver the letter!! The Unions are refusing privatisation because it will introduce a battle over rubbish working practices that the government isn't prepared to take part in as the owner, because it would lose them votes. The government think giving the workers shares will help solve the problem, but underestimate the witlessness of the guys who'll simply cash it in for an alcohol fuelled blast in Tenerife. The company usually has an ugly confrontational culture, but then the public lambast the generous helpful posties who pop around the corner at unusual hours to deliver a parcel notification. What a mess. BTW, if you don't want to receive your mail during the day, just leave it on the mat until the following morning eh?

This has to go down as one of the most rubbish threads of all time? Christ alive, get some perspective. ;-)

We're in total agreement Mick Mac

I didn't know how else to put it... 'people who have an vested interest in the outcome', it's not in a thesaurus. Sometimes these words just have to do :(

I don't disagree with you DaveR, and part of good leadership is being able to reach out, engage and communicate with all your key stakeholders - staff, children and parents. Part of that process is to let both teachers and parents be aware of the hardwork and effort that needs to be shared in order to make a success of the education process. 'Contracts' don't have to be literal in order to meet this goal, they can be symbolic. Either way, they're not 'meaningless' any more than a Victoria Cross or a secret note of our life's ambitions is 'meaningless'. Part of those who are most destructive in this environment are those who refuse to engage with the process, start talking about 'legal rights' and communicate both consciously and subconsciously to children that school is something to be mistrusted and teachers to be undermined. Those that are most constructive are those that support and encourage ('lead' if you like) efforts in delivering a team solution, talk up school, and congratulate and motivate those tasked with looking after their children's best interests. The fact that education is falling behind in the UK is because there's an increasing number of the former, and the latter group are under pressure.

Well, I don't think you'd even need the stats in this case, most people would intuitively guess that rush hour's not a bright time to be changing shift. They'd also guess that 9 hours wasn't a great break between shifts, that increased family time is a good thing etc. etc. All the stats are there for, is to rebut an accusation of 'lying' that doesn't help anyone.

Well you can see it might be a problem if the parents didn't have choice in which school their kids have to attend. In this case though, they seem to be private schools?

The demand levels are identified by actual stats in the data, not by anecdote - so are you saying they simply made it up? Nevertheless, the management solution isn't simply designed according to levels of demand, but also with respect to family friendliness, productivity, documented studies of fatigue, a nod in the direction of the working time directive and many others. The 'evenings' you appear to be losing don't seem to be the case at all - as the 'family time' increases from 11 hours to 13 hours. They're all there in the document. Forgive me for being blunt, but it seeems that your position is mostly supported by accusing the guys who disagree with you of being liars? I'm probably wrong here, so is it possible that you could come back with data that is thoughtfully and clearly repesented as the management case has been in order to prove their data wrong? The FBU must have something yes? Perhaps this is why the FBU don't be appearing to attract so much support from the general public?

And therein lies the tragedy of the UK education system. Done to death by a meanness of spirit, a lack of imagination, parents passing the buck, and a stubborn adherence to a set of 'rules' that by their definition can only appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I'm pleased to come from a family with three generations of teachers on both sides of the state/private divide. We lived, ate and breathed education. It wasn't the leaflet that raised my eyebrows, and that's why I didn't mention it. I can assure you from a well informed position that the inability for some parents to recognise that education is a three way contract between the child, the parents and the school is one of the biggest problems facing our education system.

Except that they can't sack everyone can they? It's not practical, so it's an empty gesture. If the LFB have been trying to have sensible conversations with the Union for five years, then what on earth are they expected to do? Is it possible the Union want a repeal of the clause 188 invocation with only one issue in mind - to go back to doing absolutely nothing to change a system that needs change? What do the Union really want, because it doesn't seem to be anything to do with the shift change....?

I can understand your concerns brum, I just think we should be having that debate at the appropriate time with appropriate information. Currently there is only a proposal to change shifts, and a demonstration of the benefits that delivers - there's no mention of privatisation, no talk of station closure, no talk of redundancies. The new contracts seem to be a response to Union complete intransigence over this issue, that apparently they've been trying to address for 5 years? So that's not their fault either?