Huguenot

Well, I'm guessing that you live in East Dulwich? Hurrah! :D But if you let the post office tell you where you live, then one day you may go to sleep in East Dulwich and wake up in Forest Hill because it's more convenient for the delivery team ;)

Ladida, the only thing SE22 is, is SE22 - a post office sorting administrative block. It has nothing to do with East Dulwich beyond vague correlation. I don't see why you should be allowing faceless bureaucrats in the post office who have never been to the area tell you what constitutes East Dulwich? It's silly. Postcodes change all the time based on postie workload - nothing to do with geography.

Ah, you want it in a soundbite? ;-) Austerity is when old white men take out a credit card in your name to fund their cruise holiday, and then tell you to stop feeding your kids to pay the bill. When they've spent so much you have to stop paying the hospital bill too, they call you inept. Forgive me, but I don't think we should let them get away with it.

Idiosyncratic indeed, mostly ill informed, and sometimes completely wrong. You don't really accept most of that MM? Do I need to Fisk it?

No mate, ya gotta understand it!

There was an interesting appraisal from the US entitled "USA Inc." by one of the world's most successful Internet investors, Mary Meeker. Within the manifesto, it attempted to treat the 'USA' as a corporate organisation living outside of its means. In its core premise - that the USA was a corporation whose expenditure exceeded its means - it created a valid persuasive argument that in modern corporate terms the US couldn't continue to function. The first flaw The problem was that whilst its arguments appealed in a simplistic style to hard pressed householders trying to balance the budget, the entire premise was flawed. As James Cadbury concluded at Bourneville 150 years ago, a successful corporation could only function with an educated, healthy, confident and progressive workforce. In addition it needed secure living environments and an effective infrastructure reaching out to enfranchised, secure and enthusiastic markets who felt they received value for money. The result was one of the most effective and dynamic corporations in recent history - Cadbury - and one of the most inclusive and efficient working environments - Bourneville. The problem is that in a contemporary aggressive industrial environment such as the US, the workforce and infrastructure requirements have been dismissed by corporate governance ideals that dodge decent salaries and taxes for health, education, infrastructure and social security of its workforce in favour of retaining those funds to invest further cash in companies who fail to invest in the health, education, infrastructure and social security of its workforce. Ad nauseam. The premise is inadequate and dysfunctional. Historically Cadbury and recently other contemporary inspirational economists attempt to balance these requirements, but it's more difficult and long term to prove that the books balance. The disproportionate concentration of wealth in so few hands whilst economies collapse is symptomatic of this failure. It may well be possible to treat the USA as an "Inc." but only so far as it continues to fulfil its larger responsibilities to both its workforce and its markets - both of which in contemporary principles it is failing to do. The second flaw The second failure in the USA Inc of Mary Meeker, is that a nation state cannot be a contemporary corporation because it can't actually offload its workforce. It is constricted by geographical claims. This means that if you cannot offload the workforce, you have to employ it efficiently and comprehensively - a challenge which the USA Inc. manifesto comprehensively fails to do. That's why a nation state cannot be an American style corporation - it needs to respect social economics rather than capitalist ideals. The third flaw Finally the imperative for Mary Meeker's manifesto is the concept of the US as a household that is borrowing beyond its credit card. This is a peculiar statement that only reverberates with households (that borrow 'real' money) but has almost nothing in common with a nation with a fiat currency that effectively prints its own. Fractional reserve banking is a complex idea at the best of times, so household metaphors are more appealing to the right wing. The reality is that all a government need to do keep the economy turning over is print more money to overcome either the hoarders, or the restrictive practices of banks (who don't actually have any money anyway, they just invent it every time they make a loan). This is called 'Quantitative Easing' and is at the forefront of the governments attempts to restructure the economy. Far from being a wolf in sheep's clothing (as the US and UK media barons would have us believe as they sit on their cash piles) this is absolutely necessary to alleviate the social burdens created by the establishment robber barons. The conspiracy theorists that fail to recognise this are merely suckers for the system. The long term effect of this is devaluation, but the reality is that if all modern economies devalue in concert, the effect is zero. Hence 'debt' as a national consideration disappears. The penalty The penalty for devaluation is that those who have benefitted by accumulating their wealth at the expense of the future generations is two fold: the owners of that wealth, and pensioners. Whilst this may seem unfair, these groups derived their wealth by building up the debt book. My own Dad has a final salary pension that I would need to save ?2m to acquire at present rates. If modern society wants to rebalance the books without so much pain, the reality is that it's either personal payment through 'austerity' and social collapse, or a recognition that the older generation must accept devaluation as the price of their indulgence, and their children must support them in their old age. What does that mean for 'Ineptocracy' The requirement for appropriate healthcare, education, infrastructure and social security is not a reflection of an inept society, but a requirement for effective corporate strategy and dynamic markets. So too is an insistence that this should be provided conditionally on economic activity. Far from being 'Ineptocracy' the British desire for sensible social development and security is built on a historical insight inimical to British society. We work best when everything is working well - and that means everything Cadbury held dear. That doesn't make this socialist ravings, but arguments fully intrinsic to the economic ideal within which capitalism and liberalism thrive.

Is it referring to the Tories?

Better go-carts, cowhorns, DIY electronics components, music, homemade spears... The list goes on.

I did that with the edge of my thumb playing Playstation. I had to train myself not to press so hard. Didn't make much difference.

I'm frankly incredulous that after all this time no-one's actually become exasperated enough to stake it out. :D I'd have had the longs lens out and cranked the Canon to 6400 ISO months ago!

My understanding from the map is the same as Otta - is it that you've simply conflated the St. John's parish with East Dulwich John? It seems a bit arbitrary. It doesn't even have the name East Dulwich? Strikes me you can define an area in many ways: Legacy church parish boundaries Postcode Electoral ward Distance from the train station Whilst all of these have their failings, I think it would be overplaying one's hand to claim any of them were definitively 'wrong'? Most people's interpretation seem to be a loose amalgam of all four definitions.

David Mc, it's a joke. It's supposed to be facile. Clearly these diseases have been knocking around for a while. It's about attitudes not clinical diagnosis. Glad most people got it ;-)

Cyril Smith's post mortem diagnosis of paedophilia highlights the troublesome pastime of appropriating modern afflictions to describe historical lifestyle choices. From the same hat I've pulled gluten intolerance and peanut allergies. Are there other diseases that simply didn't exist in the 70s?

Are there any stats about people falling off escalators in shopping malls? Cruises and shopping mall escalators share an appeal/death wish.

Marie Antoinette in 'let them eat cake' shocker

He IS very good. Has been for years. One should not take his name in vain.

I read it, it was jumped up. There is undoubtedly a silliness about delicatessens, but it has nothing to do with food for the poor.

Is there a way to blame the BBC for the Cyril revelations? Pleeeeeease let there be one.

Put it this way - if Chairman Mao ever told someone to clean their teeth, he'd be told to get on his horse; if you ask someone why they cleaned their teeth, they'll say 'because Chairman Mao said so'. If everyone starts cleaning their teeth, Mao will say 'It's because I told them to do it'. These guys do it all the time. It's bullshit, and Isherwood fell for it. Having said that, I'll go and read it ;-)

The more time I spend in Asia, the less I'm inclined to believe in the actions of one person - it's both a peculiarity and obsession of Western thinking. The idea that Mao could exact such power as to define strategies and behaviours at a micro level is contextually unlikely. Chinese people (and collectivist societies in general) just don't think like that. It's the interpretation of Western historians who think it woz Patton or Mountbatten wot won the war, because that becomes a justification of the system. Paternalistic figureheads are invoked post hoc to justify the decisions of entrenched leadership. The reality is that these are feudal societies who do whatever they perceive to be in their own self-interest. There was only 7,000 of 100,000 left at the end of the Long March not because 93,000 had died in the pursuit of socialist idealism, but because the vast majority had found better things to do than pissing around in the countryside with a self proclaimed Fat Controller. The Cultural Revolution wasn't ideological, it was a bunch of dim witted autocrats who saw an excuse from a mile away and mimicked their neighbours in isolating and oppressing dissent to their rule. The guys in that blog are doing just the same - post rationalising Syrian micro warfare to fit their own worldview. They want there to be a central guiding force, an intelligent designer, therefore there is one. They see concerted action where there is only the swarm of isolated minorities. The psychology of the blog is heroic Christian mythos.

Eh? It became ridiculous when you started talking about the end of the NHS. Is it not possible to talk about a deceleration in government spending growth without invoking Armageddon? You are aware, right, that the Tories are spending as much on public services as any government ever has?

I'm with DJKQ. Quite happy to opine from the outside if they withdraw their seats from the House of Lords.

Quids, now you're going on about shooting people in the head - this bizarre assertion somehow claiming I can't criticise the CofE because no Christians have committed murder recently? (BTW Erm.. Anders Breivik demanding a mono cultural Christian Europe?) This is silly, can I not criticise members of parliament because they haven't bombarded islands under disputed ownership with South Korea recently? Can I not criticise Shell until I've criticised BP enough?

"for Huges reference the C of E actually has woman priests, go and check out the others" As I pointed out, I don't remotely see the reason for this? The fact that other religions do some weird stuff doesn't suddenly make the CofE above criticism. This is a non-argument. As it happens, and as I pointed out earlier in the thread, Islam has many women Imams.

Except as SJ pointed out, that self same organisation has positions of authority in government and our chief representative, HM the Queen, is the Supreme Governor. So it's not correct to assert that the CofE is entitled to do as it wishes without recourse to the people: both the church and the Queen retain their roles at our indulgence.