rendelharris

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Okay, so I'm guessing you won't miss him then! > > I don't think Dave was great but I'm not sure any > of the likely alternatives in either party will be > better. In fact, some I fear are considerably > worse ideologically. Not so you'd notice, but I agree we could well be in for something worse, especially with the confidence to chuck their weight around the new constituencies plus Labour's disappearance in Scotland will give them.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's true, they didn't reduce the deficit as > much as they wanted to. Partly because of the the > evolution of GDP growth during and post crisis and > public backlash against austerity. > > The point was that it needed addressing which is > all I ever said about it. I'm not sure I get the > point you are trying to make. The deficit is > roughly half of what it was as a percentage of GDP > at its worst, which honestly is still too high > relative to long term growth prospects of the > country. This thread started as a question as to whether Cameron would be missed or not. I'm simply making the point that alongside the damage to public services etc he has done he and Osborne manifestly failed to meet the targets they set themselves on deficit reduction.

If you want to talk about deficit rather than the total debt, the 2010 Tory manifesto promised "an emergency budget within fifty days to pay down to bulk of the deficit." As of 2015 the deficit had been reduced by a third, which is hardly "the bulk" of it - so again, by their own yardstick, they failed.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Some of the policies > were ill thought out but reducing the deficit and > controlling the debt were 100% necessary. One can argue both sides re the necessity for reducing debt - the Tories made it sound as if no government in history had run a deficit before Blair/Brown - but as the national debt in 2010 was a whisker under one trillion and at the end of the 2015-16 financial year was over one and a half trillion (in 2005 it was 38% of GDP, it's now 80%) they've manifestly failed in their own terms. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cameron was the end product of a party in > opposition for a long time. They'd tried > everything else. He was without doubt politically > naive and it got him in the end. But he won't > suffer in the way everyone else does if they quit > their job. It was on his watch that welfare reform > means that leaving a job denies benefits for six > months, irregardless for the reasons for quitting. > If only we could all leave our jobs when we don't > like the new boss. I had no respect for him as PM > and I have even less for him now. There is nothing > 'nice' about Cameron. Self serving, arrogant, and > as ruthless as they come. This. A politician who only cared about what people would vote for, not was actually right. Look at Churchill in his wilderness years, whatever one thinks of him he eschewed popularity for what he thought was right, not what he thought was popular. Cameron was a PR man promoted way beyond his ability, the ultimate populist.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Following a conversation with another member of > the forum on the M&S thread, I have learnt > something new tonight. Supermarkets 'sell' frozen > cubes of water, commonly known as ice. Has this > always been the case? How many of you buy ice > rather than make it at home? I am genuinely > astonished this is what has come of the world in > the 21st century. Buying ice cubes. Amazing. > > Louisa. Perfect for parties when you want to fill a dustbin with water and bottles of beer for cooling, the quantity needed for a decent chill couldn't be produced at home.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Judas" "I don't believe you...you're a liar..."

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This song was written for someone specific though > wasn't it, (Joan Baez) and not as a paranoid rant > aimed at anyone he believed was maligning him. > > Perhaps people are talking about you behind your > back - and perhaps they are saying good things?! I've always understood it was a rant against the Greenwich folk scene after the bad reaction to him going electric?

Babbelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi all > > I was hoping anyone who cycles from Peckham or ED > could recommend a good (quiet) route from SE15 to > Bloomsbury (Bedford Way) that avoids horrendous > roads. I'm going to be commuting with my 18 month > old in tow. My husband thinks Blackfriars Bridge > will be less stressful than Waterloo Bridge. > Anyone have any experience or routes they could > share? I would be very grateful! > > Thanks Definitely Blackfriars Bridge, Surrey Canal Path from Peckham Library, through Burgess Park, up Portland Street to Elephant, onto the segregated routes all the way over Blackfriars to Farringdon then west through the backstreets to Bedford Street. Ride that way most days, give us a shout if you need a guide!

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't be bothered to read this thread to this > point. I'd like to ask the question though, why is > gold valued so much over water, food and things > you need to actually continue living on the > planet? I fully expect this post to be ignored. Well, because once you move away from a barter economy you need something exchangable to symbolise value and it has to be relatively rare and hard to obtain. If gold was as common as pebbles it would obviously have no value beyond the decorative.

If you don't mind a bit of a walk, overground from Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill to West Brompton (change at Clapham Junction) and it's a shade over a mile from there. Alternatively from West Brompton take the District to Earl's Court and the Piccadilly to Baron's Court (about five minutes) from where it's a quarter of a mile walk through the Margravine cemetery to the rear of the hospital.

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, who is it that you think should pick up the > phone bill? > > 15p per call seems like a relatively small price > for individual callers to pay. It's not like > anyone needs to call 101 every day. When you > consider that something like 40% of 101 calls turn > out not to be police matters, it's understandable > that the cops want to make a small charge that > might make people think twice about complaining > about next door's smelly bins or whatever. > Otherwise it would be ??? of council tax money > going on a phone bill instead of on essentials > like bullets and tear gas and whatnot. Don't forget those new "spit hoods" they want to use...

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rosetta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Don't you think it should say so at the > beginning > > of the call? > > > No, because > > 1. If I'm calling the police, I want to get on > with it rather than listen to recorded messages. > 2. If the call has started I've already been > charged, so they'd still be telling me after the > event. > > > Frankly I'd rather the 15p was going to the > underfunded police than the telephone provider, > but as has been said, the police don't profit form > it. Long thought that any charging number should by law have to have a short message at the beginning - if you proceed with this call you will be charged xxx, press 1 if you accept this charge. If you don't accept then you should just be cut off and charged the standard rate for a normal connection.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but that's how it worked in the past - there's a > vast difference between saying schools can choose > to become selective grammar schools and "from 2017 > alll schools will be become Grammar Schools or > Secondary Moderns" as always most opposition to > change in Education comes from the deeply small > 'c' conservative Public Sector unions and the > regressive elements of the left (ie most of it). Or in this case the (Tory appointed) Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Schools: bringing back grammar schools is ?tosh and nonsense? and would be a ?profoundly retrograde step?. Or Conservative MP Dr.Sarah Woolaston: ?If you stand on the steps of Downing Street and talk about wanting to reduce inequality, I think you have to follow the evidence and, I?m afraid, sooner or later you have to deliver on evidence-based policies. I think we need to be very careful that we?re not ending up giving one message but introducing policies that go in the opposite direction.? Or David Cameron: "The debate on grammars is pointless, because parents fundamentally don?t want their children divided into sheep and goats at the age of 11." Or the significant number of Tory backbenchers who've already committed to rebel against any bill to reintroduce grammars. Bloody lefties. ETA And now Nicky Morgan, Cameron's education secretary: ?I believe that an increase in pupil segregation on the basis of academic selection would be at best a distraction from crucial reforms to raise standards and narrow the attainment gap, and at worse risks actively undermining six years of progressive education reform." Also Neil Carmichael, the Conservative chair of the education select committee. When will this relentless tide of left-wing whinging ever stop?! Can't resist one more ETA: just heard on PM that the education secretary who holds the all time record for closing grammar schools was...the arch-Trot Margaret Thatcher!

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and now to ignore my own advice. > > I want to pick up on Loz's point about the German > system. I'm against TM's policy, but admire the > German system. This is because the German system > is aimed at providing high quality specialist > education, both academic and non-academic.(As per > discussion on the Today programme just pre 0900). > This is not what the government is proposing. Yes, there's a vast gulf between providing a variety of routes and essentially saying everyone will get pretty much the same education but 20% chosen at an arbitrary point will have it provided in a far superior manner.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Instead of 'writing off' 80%, you'd > rather 'write off' 100%? > > Why should average be the most we give the kids? No, that argument doesn't work (and it's just a silly accusation, would I be bothering even to have this discussion if I want to write off 100% of kids?). We can give kids a wonderful education but still make it available to 100% of them. What your argument assumes is infinite resources, which don't exist. For grammar schools to provide a superior education they need more resources, the best teachers and smaller class sizes. As the amount of funding and the pool of really good teachers is finite, those resources and teachers have to be taken away from the lower 80% so that the top 20% can succeed. I want to see a superb education for all, not just those kids whose parents can afford a private tutor to get them through the 11+.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the Tories are always inclined to sign up to > selection - it resonates with their infantile > social Darwinist fantasies ('natural' differences > in 'ability' need to be given a helping hand at an > early age to find full expression - for the social > is otherwise seen as likely to suffocate the > development of the 'gifted'). The result of such > policies is to stabilise social reproduction in > exactly the way 'conservatives' want (that > probabilistically you will do very much better if > you are of the offspring of privilege). > > Grammar schools are an exercise in the most > terrible bad faith here: they promise an 'escape' > for a tiny number of children from very > disadvantaged families (whereas, as with both my > parents, they actually tend to be populated by > people from the middle class who cant quite manage > private school fees) so 'prove' that 'natural' > selection is working and we don't have to worry > about social reproduction (or the iniquities of > private education). The tests are at an arbitrary > age of the child and create a monstrous division > between those who pass and those who fail (think > of the person who just fails) on an image of > 'intelligence' that is hocus pocus (i.e. > one-dimensional, asserted to be validly measured > by 'IQ' tests etc etc). Well said sir or madam, rem acu tetigisti (there's me grammar school education compulsory Latin coming out!).

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really don't see why grouping children into > schools that are more educationally comparable is > such a bad idea. Teaching a widely differing > group of kids must be really difficult. The smart > kids get bored; the kids that need extra help > don't get it. > > Just because it's been poorly implemented before, > doesn't mean it's a bad idea. > > If only the UK was as pragmatic as the Germans - > their school system would make your anti-grammer > person's head explode. I've taught a lot of classes of widely differing kids, if you do it right the brightest help the less able (and learn by doing so) and all learn, it's a lovely thing to see. What grammar schools as run in this country up to now and under the currently proposed model do is simply write off 80% of the student cohort as being pretty much worthless at the age of eleven. I know it's not the done thing, apparently, to correct spelling on discussion boards, but for heaven's sake, grammar has two as and no es.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *sigh* > > They won't be like before > Choice > Demand > etc > .....or let's bung it all back to a one shop LEA > dictatorship...say the Grammar and private school > alumni of Corbyn's Labour party Actually got an argument in favour quids, or just the usual easier knock down everyone else shtick?

Great quote from Sir William of Bragg today: "The difference between state education and private schooling is the same as that between public transport and a taxi service. While the taxi will take you to where you want to be, the subway system will take you to a predetermined stop, leaving you to get to where you want to be under your own steam. "The Tories' plan to re-introduce grammar schools will only serve to make the journey harder for 80% of pupils by forcing them to get off the subway several stops before their destination." Sums it up: if grammar schools will provide a superior education, it follows logically that those who don't go to them will receive an inferior education.

I suspect, uncle, that you will NEVER be convinced that anything other than your own viewpoint is correct. However, leaving ideological differences aside, you're talking of a completely different era where, (very) broadly speaking, those going to grammar school moved on to university and a job like doctor, solicitor, teacher, civil servant etc; for those who didn't there were solid jobs in solid manual industries, with apprenticeships and a certain dignity in labour. Now Britain's economy is 80% based on service industries, the entire complexion of educational needs has changed. The reintroduction of grammar schools is simply a ploy to provide the middle classes - the Tories' natural constituency - with a superior education to the working class whilst trying to claim it's exactly the opposite.

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fellow sufferers, > > Absolutely sick to death of continuous aircraft > noise and have written to Boris Johnson in the > past about not wanting the third runway at > Heathrow. Have sent off a similar letter to our > new mayor, but just read somewhere that he's for > the expansion of the airport. I also read that > when the development does go ahead the increase in > business and tourism will 'make every family in > the country ?24,000 a year better off' Well that's > all right then. Although things will be much > worse, at least I will have a nice big check > coming through the post! > > Hooray for Khan- saviour of the common people of > London! I don't know where on earth you're getting your information from - didn't the ?24K claim alert you to the fact that it's bollocks? - but Khan supports expansion at Gatwick and opposes the third runway at Heathrow. http://www.developmentfinancetoday.co.uk/article-desc-4792_sadiq-khan-urges-theresa-may-to-dismiss-third-heathrow-runway#.V9FmU7XEIW8

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't you think it should say so at the beginning > of the call? My telephone provider said that the > police do profit from it. Isn't the emergency > number free? No, all profits go to Vodafone who run it. As I said, not saying it's right and yes a warning beforehand would be good as most people will assume it's free. 999 is definitely free.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IS Kingston like West Wickham? Incredibly dull > and parochial. I don't know West Wickham but that certainly applies to Kingston - moved up to this neck of the woods as soon as I got my first proper job!

I grew up in Kingston, where they still have grammar schools (to which I went), and it was well accepted that house prices were inflated due to the middle classes buying properties to be in the catchment area - indeed some of my classmates' parents (not mine) had specifically moved to the area when their kids were approaching secondary age to give them a chance of getting in - and who spent a fair bit on private tutors to ensure their kids were very well prepared for the exam. Certainly in that area it was a way of middle class parents getting a private/public school level education (I hated it but that's just me) without paying for it - it certainly wasn't the democratic give-everyone-an-equal-chance scenario which it's now being sold as. The secondary moderns (are they still called that?) to which one was sent if one failed the 11+ were, at that time at least, underfunded, had poor quality teaching and, crucially, had to deal with disaffected pupils who'd basically been told they weren't fit for the top tier at the age of eleven.