tomchance

Thank you so much for all of your very kind, generous thoughts! What lovely people. We've kitted most of our flat out with freecycle and junk shops, I don't think we'll have a problem with the materialism part. It's very reassuring to see lots of people in a similar situation making the most of life. We'll just have to upgrade our flat budget spreadsheet if the time comes :)

My partner and I have started to talk about the practicalities of having a kiddo, and obviously one of our main concerns is money. We currently rent quite comfortably off our combined income (roughly ?60k), but if we dropped down to just my income (around ?30k) we'd really struggle. We've looked at a few shared ownership schemes in the area and it seems the minimum household income they want is around ?35k, which is above mine. I've looked briefly into child benefit and local housing allowance, which it seems we could potentially get help from if we kept renting but I'm not sure I'd have enough left to save anything. Can anyone offer some basic advice, like childcare costs vs. staying at home and getting a mortgage or paying rent without relying on our present income & low outgoing requirements?

It's worth noting that the cut is due to a reorganisation of custody suites, using staff instead of police officers to run them. So James, your calculation is just misleading. The number of police officers (if we're to take that as a measure of success) is considerably higher than it was in 2000, and crime has more or less continuously fallen across London since the mid 1990s. The main two things to have come out of the GLA budget process this year relating to the police that should worry people round this way are: - No guarantees (unlike under Ken) for the Safer Neighbourhood Teams, who we think should be safeguarded against the 6% cuts that the Southwark Borough Commander will have to make. I think our local teams are great, it would be terrible to see them lose any resources. - Cuts and reorganisation of the road safety units, which local councillor Jenny Jones fought for 8 years to get up to its current standard in London. Given the recent tragic death of the young girl on the corner of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye, I think this is something that everyone can agree is vitally important.

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our waste contractor Veolia assures us going co > mingling will boost recycling rate very quickly > during the next financial year from 24% to 30%. I > believe this is a step towards further segregation > when food waste will be collectable which clearly > will have to be seperated. So you're going with the view of a large company that stands to benefit from the cheaper collection system, rather than the advice of the Government's expert adviser, advice supported by most independent waste experts and NGOs? You'll probably get a larger quantity of material into the trucks in the next few years, but you're shooting yourself in the foot if you want to eventually reach the recycling rates of our neighbours around Europe.

James, just wondering why Southwark Council is rolling out comingling when the Government's waste adviser, WRAP, brought out research a while back showing conclusively that segregated recycling is much, much better? Mixing it all together leads to contamination, particularly for paper and cardboard, so less of the collected material gets recycled. Easier, perhaps, but not the way to go at all! Incidentally, another reason for low recycling rates in a lot of parts of London is that the population moves around a lot, so people don't learn how to use every council's slightly different facilities.

This might help - a web map that shows all the footpaths etc. in the area: http://osm.org/go/euuuH2nM

David Mckay's book is excellent, and he's a very genial man to boot. Beyond Oil by Paul Mobbs is also worth reading. The obvious general approach is: reduce what we need, use it efficiently, and get it from sustainable sources. Aside from debating the place of nuclear fission/fusion (given that, with current technology and supplies of uranium, it is only a feasible stop-gap solution for a few countries), I think most greenies agree that it's a great big mix of efficiencies in the way we generate and use energy (e.g. refurbishing buildings), changes in the way we do things to be less energy intensive (e.g. less oil-derived fertiliser and pesticide use), a switch to low/zero-carbon sources of all kinds, and in various areas a reduction in the amount we do those things (flying, especially). All with the proviso that new technology might come along and change things! I think the major problem we've had in the UK is the political paralysis brought on by NIMBYs, muddled policy (it's great that Mckay is now the chief scientist at the dept. for energy and climate change), and politicians who lack the courage of their convictions.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suppose my thinking is: > > a. Policies labelled as progressive seem to > involve continual change. > b. Continual change isn't necessarily a good > thing > c. I fear that progressive policies and > politicians tend to be based upon unsustainable > optimism rather than thoughtful analysis. You could simply say that "conservatism" is concerned with conserving the past, whilst "progressivism" is concerned with making progress towards a better society. But politics and political philosophies are so complex, and the media's application of labels so simplistic, that it's a fairly pointless exercise trying to use the etymology of a word or it's usual sense to determine whether Labour or "the left" or "progressives" are a good thing. Think of the 70s/80s New Right, for example, making a nonsense of my simplstic definition of conservatism above. Thatcher was anything but a conservationist, whilst Blair, who you might want to label as a "progressive", conserved many of the central economic assumptions of that New Right movement. So I think your original question is rather meaningless. > The three examples I gave were not meant to > represent any particular political stance - they > were presented to illustrate that what started out > as a good idea can, at least in some people's > opinion, turn into something less good if no > brakes are applied, no post implementation review > carried out and instead continual change, always > moving away from the original status quo, is > adopted. Hence some of us focused on your examples, because they set your argument up by taring a meaningless label with a (your?) particular take on those complex topics. I could equally ask "is it good to conserve the past?" and suggest that conservative economic policy in the 80s led to more racism, oppression and a new, unhealthy reliance on the welfare state. Or that the heritage buildings movement has stopped people from improving their homes, making them more energy efficient and the like.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not sure that progressive politicians, of all > hues, recognise this. Britain signed up for > significant change in the late 40s with the > creation of the welfare state - but many of that > generation would be appalled at how the > progressive changes to the concept have brought UK > to a position where over a third a of all families > rely upon tax credits. Why do right wing pundits attack pro-equality policies then moan about the uptake of welfare required to soak up the problems? It's like knocking social rented homes being built then expressing shock at the uptake of housing benefit. The main problem I can see with the welfare system is that, for worry of perpetual attacks from the right, no government has been able to redesign the system to incentivise work without knocking great big holes through the safety net. > In the 70s many voted to join the Common Market - > a free trading economic union. Many are now aghast > that progressive politics has turned the simple > economic mutual society into a quasi overly > bureaucratic superstate. Which many on the left criticise, too, although "superstate" is a bit of an overstatement. Another funny conservative tendency - to assume they are the only ones who dislike the undemocratic structures of the EU. > What word could be applied usefully to challenge > the, I believe, incorrect belief that progressive > politics and progressive policies are always > positive and good? You might like to read up on some essays by George Lakoff from a few years back for inspiration. He got the Democrats in the USA to stop adopting Republican terms like "tax relief" and "pro life", which so effectively framed the debate that they were unable to get their points across. A bit like, oh, I don't know, "the European superstate" :)

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have heard that some farmers use it on their > livestock and it works on them. > Doesn't make sense to me at all but animals do not > have any such opinions or knowledge. Some vintners and viticulturists produce "biodynamic" wine using homeopathic techniques, it's pretty popular in Green & Blue. At least it has been carefully looked after, I guess, in the same way that those farmers are most likely just practicing good husbandry.

Check out Lordship Lane, North Cross Road, Bellenden Road, Rye Lane markets, the parks and cemeteries, the Centre for Wildlife Gardening off Marsden Road. Then make your own mind up :) I love the area! Handy map here with a lot more detail than Google - http://osm.org/go/euuvCH@r-- (er, I contributed all the data ;))

I think you need to look at the evidence, ????, before running off those slightly tired arguments. Will bankers all flee? What might the signs be, besides some whingeing supported by a Mayor who funded his election campaign with their money? Well office rents in those areas of London have been rising sharply due to demand, the Telegraph reported an anticipated growth of 100,000 jobs in the sector over the next ten years, and the Mayor is still planning for major growth in the sector. So clearly not an exodus, although of course there will be a number of footloose people who leave, just as many more come. Are we really this down on London as a place to live and do business? Are we unfairly attacking them? Well first, much tougher regulation and taxes are coming in the USA, and most of the rest of Europe is already better regulated than the UK. Second, the public bailout of banks will probably lose taxpayers more money than their entire tax contributions for the likely duration of the recession. The bankers should thank us for keeping them in business. Is it the best thing to do? Clearly not as a lone, one-off measure. A government more concerned with developing a more fair and resilient economy would bring forward reforms to stabilise the system, break up the riskier banks, and work both internationally and with UK regulations to shift more of our money towards useful outcomes like investment in housing, SMES, etc. rather than in financial innovations that former Fed chairman Paul Volcker suggested probably don't add anything to the economy anyway. In the long term I'd prefer to lose a little tax revenue from that sector and see more affordable housing, rather than the cost of buying a home jumping twice as fast as incomes again. Hmph!

I've also noticed TfL never suggest using the 37, more so than other odd suggestions it sometimes gives. If I know a route that I trust I just use that and ignore TfL, it's only useful for destinations you're unfamiliar with and even then you have to go through the hassle of pointing out that you can walk faster than a snail and would rather not pay for 3 buses plus a train! Or just cycle, http://london.cyclestreets.net is a much better journey planner for us two-wheeled folk.

Ann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remain unconvinced about homeopathic remedies > but then have never tried any. You've been trying it all your life, it's called tap water plus chatting with a friend!

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't TASTE good!!! - a good glass of wine or > ale is absolutely delicious and I would drink them > even if there was no alcohol content - just for > the taste. Riesling, Pinot Noir, > Doombar............... Which is precisely why I love a good pint of ale, a decent Islay malt and pretty much anything from Green & Blue!

All I know ergonomically is that you need to be able to shove your bum into to back, be sat up straight with a slight curve in your back, have your thighs and arms parallel to the floor, and be comfortable without slipping forward. I've a colleague who keeps an eye on my whenever I start slouching, that helps too!

There was an excellent item on Horizon about the biochemistry of alcohol, and how it affects different people in different ways. Of course it sounds a bit obvious, but it's amazing how it makes some people feel giddy and happy very quickly, whilst others barely notice. Only a minority of people really, really get off on having a drink, which probably explains why some cultures get by without it just fine. Also interesting is that only a small minority drink over the limit (21 units for men, 14 for women). The massive public health problem, and the bills for the NHS + police, are caused by a really small minority. But the way it's sometime celebrated, you'd think it was mainstream behaviour! Anyway, as someone whose biochemistry seems to respond well to a few drinks but unhappily to lots, I'll answer the original question: Yes! The idea of drinking something that doesn't even taste very good to get drunk as a regular habit, or prelude to a good time, seems pretty weird to me.

Huh, to think I believed the crew when, having asked, they said they were filming a horror movie! Not a comment on the cooking, I assume.

I noticed they recently put up a little sign on the West part of East Dulwich Road informing us that it's not a pedestrian crossing. You wouldn't have thought it would be all that hard to make it safe and suitable for pedestrians.