onetwo07

Anybody living out in Penistone care to give me a quick progress report?! School closed today again, hoping it might be tomorrow too given the prospect of attempting to get out there..!

Hugely optimistic here, but anyone know what the situation' like out in Penistone? In S10 (where I am) it's pretty thick so I'm assuming it'll not be pretty out there (at least from a driving point of view!). Cheers.

This is quite something for November - I'm usually a bit snow sceptic but I have to say I'm surprised! Does anyone know whether it's snowing out in Penistone? Have to get to PGS tomorrow morning (if it's open of course) and at the minute I'm struggling to see how I'm even going to get moving on my road (s10). Cheers.

Cheers, well, we'll wait and see tomorrow morning...

Hello, anyone have any idea about the general situation out in Penistone? It's pretty thick on the ground here in S10 now.

Penistone Grammar School - closed. 'Now for all you youngsters, you toddlers. This is what you've been waiting for. Springfield County schools are-- I can't read it I'm too excited... Uh-oh. Springfield County schools will be closed!'

Anyone know about Penistone at all? Took me 2 1/2 hours to get to work y'day (from Sheff). Today I'm not certain I'm going to be able to get my little old car moving, let alone get it out into the sticks! And, if there's one place you don't want to get stuck..!

Seems to me a historical pendulum swing that aims to hark back to a rose-tinted one-nation, paternalistic Tory Britain. Charity is quite often a sticking plaster to make people feel better about themselves in relation to the massive injustices that exist (that they wouldn't actually want to pay for properly!). Take the NSPCC - it's outrageous that there is a need for it to exist in 21st century Britain - but I can bung them a fiver and feel better that I'm doing my bit for deprived, abused kids (rather than paying a proper amount for the social services to be properly funded and expanded). Though this 'charity' and 'people power' part of the 'B(S?!) Society' is overstated. The third set of people that Cammo quietly referred to was 'private providers' - who in reality will begin to cream a profit from a whole raft more of our formerly public services. It's depressing, it won't work. Really we seem to able to sum up our modern world political outlook in one word: 'selfish'. Shame the government are so good at making people believe they are richer than they are. We're in the preposterous situation where many on middle incomes are terrified of extra high end taxation (e.g. the new 50% rate) - because they've somehow been flattered/decieved into thinking it penalises them. Yet these are the very same people who could never afford private healthcare/education etc. for their families.

Good teaching assistants are great, bad teaching assistants can be a bit of a pain. The number of teaching assistants isn't so much an issue as the variance in quality - that's my opinion as a (still relatively new!) teacher. Having a good TA in a difficult class or a class with a good number of SEN pupils is a Godsend. Having someone who talks at the same time as you or who attempts to impose their own heavy-handed disiplinary touch on pupils (without/despite prior consultation) is not so good...

This is a really strange thing to have made public. They will never in a million years cut spending by close to that much - the 25% is wishful thinking in itself. Thatcher never even got close to cutting spending (except, I think, for 3 years out of her time in power) - whatever you think about Thatcher, the current incumbents don't have half her aggression. These figures are being banded about to make the Tories look like big men in front of the financial markets, but they could very easily over-egg the pudding. If cuts so volumous as to be unattainable (like this fantasy 40%) were genuinely attempted, the social and economic consequences would be so dire that the markets would cut and run. It seems sad to me that in the 21st century we are still chasing 'growth' like a junkie chases their next fix. I think we're going to slowly realise that the Earth is a finite resource and we, in general, have plenty of wealth - it is how this is circulated, regulated and distributed that will determine our success (perhaps as a planet as well as a nation). I am no raving hippy/Marxist/anarchist, but it seems very sick that normal people should be struggling, be put out of work, be scrabbling around for their existence, whilst others live in such massive luxury that they could not spend all of their money even if they wanted to. All under the pretext of fixing a crisis that most of us had zero part in bringing about...

According to wikiquote (again, no God given authority but sounds fairly plausible): "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." Often attributed to Winston Churchill. [5], The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

As I said, I don't know if it's right or wrong but it is often attributed to him. Churchill was such a prolific waffler (and very good at it too) you're never sure if he said things or not. I'd guess if he did, he'd probably heard it somewhere before (it sounds the kind of cliche that could have been knocking around and being recycled for many many years). I'd be very willing to lay bet that similar things had been said before a late 20th century rock band plucked such a phrase from the air!

Only since the dawn of the internet have people had the opportunity to shoot bile quite like this! You really do sound like you could pick a fight with your own shadow. The quote you cite is usually attributed to Churchill (rightly or wrongly, I'm not actually sure), but it is to do with liberals and conservatives, not socialists (Chuchill himself was of course a zealous liberal reformer in his younger years, along with Lloyd George - in fact they laid the foundations of the welfare state). It is of course a gross, but entertaining, simplification. I just wonder how these 'socialists' end up annoying you so much? Do they come round and demand that they should be able to lay a dump on your worksurface since all property is theft? If I were you, I'd head outside and enjoy the lovely sunshine to calm down... (though on second thoughts, you might end up having to share it, or a pavement, or a park bench - and I'm guessing you'd not want to do that).

The 21st century Geddes Axe. It didn't work then and I have a feeling it will not work now. People are scared by exaggerated metaphors about credit cards and debt junkies, but the fact is we cut during the 20s and 30s - only recovering when governments began spending in a sustained way (through choice in the US, and through re-arnament in Britain). We tried to cut during the 70s and 80s, but in reality the state was spending comfortably more (in real terms) at the end of Thatcher's premiership than it was at the beginning. On both of these ocassions unemployment topped 3 million and the burden of dole payments stifled economic dynamism. I think the thing that is never considered in today's situation is the relativity. The UK's economy is not in a particularly good way. But: a) as above, cuts (particularly if over-agressive, rapidly implemented) in themselves probably will not help. b) the whole world economy is pretty bummed, and everyone is doing the same (fiscal retrenchment). Thus, unless China is going to start importing suddenly, where are all our recovering manufacturing goods going to go? Are we going to give them away? c) (b) means that the markets aren't as much of a threat as everyone thinks. They, at the end of the day, know where their bread is buttered and would have tonked the UK completely by now if we were Greece (which we're patently not). If the markets were to pan the UK, then they would be panning a fair few others too (including the US). d) UK sovereign debt: net exporters (China, India etc) in the short term will not let western economies fail, so we have breathing space. Government debt will continue to be eaten up, because those who buy it have a vested interest in seeing western economies through rough times. If the UK, US, EU etc. stop buying things, then, ironically, the fast developing nations are probably more stuffed than everyone else: their economies are completely and inflexibly geared toward one thing: mass export. A few thoughts. Not the ideal medium for their expression, but I think there is quite a lot going unquestioned at the minute in favour of cliches: 'they don't get it', 'we can't go on like this', 'we're all in it together', which only serve to fog the situation and patronise people. *For ref, the Geddes Axe (Lloyd George saw the error of his ways later but, ironically given toda's situation, was a Liberal PM propped up by a Tory parliament who craved a cut in government intervention/spending). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geddes_Axe

This is fairly depressing stuff. Of course the historical narrative is massively complicated and contested (are they ever anything other?!). But... we are where we are - I think that is the first point to accept. Given that Israel has already been formed, Palestine has already largely been occupied etc etc, we surely need only be concerned about how things might be improved into the future. In that context I really find it difficult to see how current Israeli policy is anything other than counter-productive, hawkish and downright abhorrent. If the intention of the Israeli government is to lock itself into a state of perpetual siege then they are achieving it perfectly, see: Provocative foreign policy judgments (heavy-handed incursions into others' sovereign territory). The isolation of majority moderate Arab/Muslim opinion (rise of Hamas, fall out with Turkey). The dilution of support amongst previously stong advocates (phosphorous shells aimed at UN buildings, completely illegal occupation of ships in international waters). Unfortunately the hardliners seem to hold sway within the Israeli elite, and what we see is a spiral of mutual radicalisation - Israel guts Gaza -> Hamas become more popular, fire weapons -> Israel reacts in an even more brutal fashion, kill civilians -> Hamas once more gain in popularity, ad infinitum... Israel, as the stronger party, must begin to exercise greater restraint and wiser judgement. They might feel threatened, but they have to take a lead in conciliation and genuine negotiation otherwise things will never change.

This is a strange one and having only seen the one associated newspaper report (and not having heard anything about it previously) it is difficult to develop a definite opinion. I have no idea of the nature of the people involved in this construction, I have little idea about attitudes towards Muslims in New York. Could it possibly be that resident NYers are actually more or less at peace with this (the quote from the FBI bloke seemed to suggest some degree of small solidarity)? Is it a sincere move by a moderate group to try and emphasise their involvement in the rebirth of Manhattan (the antithesis of those that sought to destroy)? Or is it something less noble? I suspect the former, though I can understand why it may appear to be the latter. Also, this strikes me as a very unusual place for your bog-standard community centre/place of minority worship. Rates and rents will be astronomical, few Muslims live in the area. This makes me wonder whether very rich people are behind it - perhaps from the extensive Middle-Eastern business community. These people more than most may feel they can benefit from displaying solidarity with the heart of US capitalism - perhaps creating a space for lobbying, hosting clients etc..? I am guessing that this is something concieved of by people who have perhaps misjudged their plans. I doubt it is intended as a slur (quite possibly it is supposed to be the opposite), but I think the hysteria is possibly understandable. I think the 'Muslim' -> 'terrorist' association is unfortunate, many religious, ethnic, national (and other) groups have spawned a small section of violent followers: Basques, Irish, Catholics, Tamils, left-wingers, right-wingers, Muslims, Hindus etc... Over the top outrage is not a helpful reaction, neither sweeping statments as a result of one potential incident of which we know essentially nothing. It will be interesting to see how this develops, but I don't think we should be imagining it as a huge, globally significant religious-political provocation.

If the Lib Dems go into formal coalition with the Conservatives, I will absolutely never vote for them again. Thankfully, I suspect it won't happen. A weak Conservative minority government relying on not antagonising the Lib Dems too much is perhaps most likely.

Sorry, that is rubbish. There isn't a winner - that's the whole point. If the Conservatives can get a workable majority, their rule would be legitimate. If Lab/Lib could do the same, their rule would be legitimate - that is parliamentary democracy. A Lib Lab pact would represent a 52% vote share, a Conservative minority 37%. If Labour and the Lib Dems can agree that a pact could serve the interests of their voters, they would be more than entitled to rule (again, the same could be said of any other combination of party).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/conservatives-philippa-stroud-gay-cure Seems as though this woman is a bit of an old-school Tory legend. It's pretty incredible really in the 21st century, but there you go... I just hope that these imbeciles complaining about 'militant homosexuality' and the like (on this forum amongst others) are as much of a vocal minority as I suspect them to be. Having said that I do enjoy their squirming at the moral degeneracy of the modern world, and their retreat to conspiracy theory as they become more and more out of touch with mainstream thinking (of course, by the 'mainstream', I actually mean 'militant, greenie, loopy, PC, homosexual, muslim, Polish, black, pervert, hoodie wearing, council house dwelling, anti-Christian, benefit scrounging, Labour voting scumbags who are holding this great nation to ransom).

In seriousness, it is a brilliant editorial. It pretty much sums up exactly what my thoughts are on this election: electoral reform is simply too big an opportunity to miss. Very reasonable and considered discussion of the three parties too. Don' think it'll make a huge difference in itself - most readers will vote Lab/Lib anyway I'd guess (though there do seem to be a lot of small 'c' social conservatives who read The Guardian). It does, however, just add to that general air that this time round voting for the Lib Dems might not be a waste of time. It also maintains the feeling that they are very much on an upward trajectory against one stagnant, out of touch party, and another which seems exhausted, divided and demoralised after thirteen years of government.

Haha, brilliant little typo. I have an image of William the Conqueror arguing it out with Shirley Williams over 'fair taxation'. Mind you, she is no spring chicken!

What he said. Of course there is a chance, don't be so arrogant about how 'clueless' people are. A Nick Clegg premiership would be one feasible option in a Lib/Lab government (of course it isn't the only one). In fact, The Times have suggested as much here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7107646.ece (Clegg Bids for no. 10 as price for Labour pact) It probably will not happen, but there is certainly a reasonable-ish chance that it might... Vote Lib Dem, get Clegg. How refreshingly simple that would be!

Read what I put above, there need be no formal 'deal'. The Cons will probably just form a fragile minority government without any coalition partners. They will then be dependent on the Lib Dems not opposing legislation in order to pass it (which the Lib Dems, I guess, would only do if they agree with it). In effect it would be a Cons government in a straight jacket, until they tried something controversial and provoked Lib Dem opposition, at which point we either have new elections or a Lib/Lab government (either coalition or minority with support of the other party). The Lib Dems will not go into formal coalition with the Tories, they have nothing to gain from it. Allowing a Conservative minority administration is, however, not the same thing.

I think this is possibly less of a certain thing than is being suggested... a) Nick Clegg ruled out working in a coalition with Labour with Gordon Brown remaining in Downing Street. That is if Labour come 3rd in votes. If either of those caveats are not borne out, the situation might be different. - If Labour come 3rd, LibDems will come 2nd: so, is NC saying (in that situation) that any deal with Labour would only be possible if he were to actually become PM (as he has a greater personal mandate in the nation's eyes?). So in effect, we'd have Labour supporting the Libdems rather than vice versa. b) Is NC saying he'll go into coalition with the Cons in the case of a hung parliament. I think this is a definite no. What is much more likely is that if the Cons become the largest party in votes and seats (without a majority), the Lib Dems would allow them to form a minority government. Both Labour and the Lib Dems would remain in opposition, with the Lib Dems voting on Tory legislation piece by piece. This is likely, and has the potential to bring the Tory government down as soon as they try and pass a piece of controversial legislation - at which point Lib Dems/Lab might form a government together (which commanded an overall majority). - I would guess the minimum price in any of these situations would be electoral reform, which would in itself be enough to bring down a minority Con government if dodged. - The Cons would never in a million years be able to pass their inheritance tax plans, big early spending cuts or marriage tax breaks in the minority government scenario. -Many Lib Dems would perhaps not vote with the whip in regard of a Tory minority govt - making any administration even more fragile. Conclusion. 1) Overall, I expect a Tory government but a weak and fragile one without any mandate for particularly conservative policies. 2) I expect that in any of the above situations the Lib Dems will become a strong and constant presence in British politics. 3) The Lib Dems will probably not go into formal coalition with Labour (though they might if Brown gave way to Clegg/other as PM). 4) The Lib Dems will definitely not go into formal coalition with the Tories (massive differences on many issues), though they might allow them to form a minority government (whose fate they would then control.) Apologies for the essay...

Steve Davis: what a man!