micromacromonkey

The birth rate in the UK has dropped significantly from 1.92 in 2010 to 1.56 in 2021. This has an impact on class sizes in state schools which obviously is magnified as kids born in these years come to school age. Looks like all those thousands of ex-private school kids will actually keep our class sizes at a reasonable level: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/london-school-closures-places-pupils-falling-birth-rate-b1158175.html (from 16th May 2024) Despite the Telegraph's best efforts, this is a non-issue.

That is a flawed analysis. It's unfortunately light on details but here's a couple of glaring errors: Firstly it uses the discredited assumption that all possible positive externalities due to the independent school sector are in-scope for any calculation. This is manifestly not true: https://fullfact.org/education/times-front-page-error-independent-schools/ Secondly, I'm guessing that, if surveyed, no parents of kids at independent schools would volunteer that they WANTED to pay more. It's surprising therefore that 'only' 20% of respondents said that they would pull their kids out with the imposition of VAT. Realistically it will be significantly less as people will tighten in other areas rather than disrupt their kids' education. After all school fees have been rising above inflation since the turn of the century: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-charts-that-shows-how-private-school-fees-have-exploded-a7023056.html This article shows some schools have increased by almost 50% in the last 8 years: https://exampapersplus.co.uk/most-expensive-schools-in-the-uk/ So it's disingenuous to suggest that parents will pull kids out due to another increase.

WHYC looks like a great cause, thanks 🙏

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-generally-popular-report-ordered-by-sunak-finds

Hi all, so we got some free money from the government yesterday, but this should really have been spent on public services. In lieu of that I'd like to find a local kids charity to send it to instead. I already do Pecan foodbank but would like something else that can make a local difference. Any thoughts?

I already addressed the implications of this above, and that doesn't even include the cohort who could afford to pay but their kids didn't get into their chosen private school for whatever reason (I can think of a couple of friends who are in this position). The schools will find takers for the places, or they'll reduce their fees until they do. Supply and demand will ensure that.

I found a pic of the inside.

The fact that the current economy of private schools is built on tax avoidance is the concern here. Labour are rightly closing the loophole. It is beyond doubt that earnings potential of privately educated kids is higher than state kids (on average), but why should that be delivered within a charity model? Certainly in our area kids get educated by the state pretty well, so the thing you are paying for is actually a salary uplift in their adult life. It's hard to see how that kind of service is not VAT-able. The supposed 'cost saving' to the state due to privately educated kids not using state resources is ~3.5bn. VAT on ~10bn school fees will raise ~1.7bn. Realistically, say this causes 10% of kids to exit the private school system. The government spends an extra 350m on educating them, plus it loses 170m from the tax take. So it's still net positive by 1bn+ for the country (and net positive for all the ski resorts where the parents can spent the cash they saved).

Schools round here are excellent, by and large. Your kids will get a great education in a state school. Our daughter is at Harris Girls (OFSTED Outstanding Jan 2024) and we love it. If you want to buy your kids a backdoor into the civil service, finance or other old boys' networks (which I'm not saying is necessarily a terrible thing) then you are welcome to do so but that type of service is definitely something that should be taxed. After all if there's no Value Add what's the point?

We've had John doing a ceiling for us today. This is the third time we've had him in to do stuff and we're always pleased with the results. He is also a really nice guy. In fact I hope he'll be back for a 4th time in the next few weeks to plaster the only room in the house he hasn't yet done!

I was just thinking the other day stood on ED station platform that this site was ripe for development. If I was a resident of the recently developed Featherstone Mews though I'd be somewhat aggrieved having a 7-story development right next door. (Has anyone seen that website btw? Rather odd CGI walk around ED.) Such guff spouted on the developer's website about all the students moving out of their big family houses just as fast as their legs will carry them, apparently causing some trickle-down benefit to local families. Students are people too though, and if there is a genuine need across London then they have to go somewhere. I am however dubious that Melbourne Grove will suddenly be full of all the shops that they imply it will. More like another 6 takeaways (if my student experience is anything to go by). Looking at that site, compared to surrounding streets it's difficult to see how you'd get many family houses in, but perhaps people in this country need to get used to a more european way of living (i.e. apartments). The developers still wouldn't make as much money though.

Interesting, I've been wondering how to make ours a little less ugly. I've been looking for louvred fence panels but that looks good with the slats. Did you check that it's OK for airflow?

Build it out of concrete blocks for security, with wooden cladding for aesthetics. The blockwork structure probably requires planning, but wooden ones almost certainly don't and nobody will know what's underneath 🙂 I have a plan to do the same in my front garden.

We've had John here this week to do some plastering for us. it was a full room (lots of angles and corners) plus a couple of patching up jobs and he has done an excellent job as well as leaving the place clean and tidy. This is no surprise as he did about 6 rooms in this house when we first moved in 4 years ago and did a great job on those too :) John is a really nice guy and I can deffo recommend him for anyone needing plastering done - 07905 044912

I'm near Bellenden road so: avondale rise > camberwell grove > lyndhurst grove > bushey hill rd, peckham road > southampton way > commercial way, then either to end of commercial way > devon st > THE TIP or.. left onto peckham hill st > bird in bush road > glengarry road > OKR > right into Asda/B&Q industrial estate. (NB there is a camera outside PC World so don't cross that junction. Screwfix is a no-go area.) I'm sure that the nefarious revenue generators (the council) have got a crack team monitoring this forum 24/7 in order to close down such non-compliance, so book a tip slot while you can.

What they really SHOULD do is to change the MOT so that if there is any blue smoke (well, some low level anyhow) then you automatically fail. Too many vehicles that are probably 'ULEZ compliant' that are disgustingly dirty.

There is one at the Lyndhurst/Holly Grove junction. One of the dedicated ULEZ ones, that look a bit like a fat beetle with no legs (or something like that). I am on the auto-pay scheme and annoyingly they don't update your journey immediately - it can take up to a week. I have done a few exploratory trips to discover whether I can do my fortnightly trip to the tip/B&Q, which is basically all I use the car for. And the answer is yes, I can. Any 2006+ petrol car should be compliant, so cheap as chips (relatively speaking, given the recent increase in second hand car prices). My 2013 stop/start low-mileage diesel is only EURO5 so doesn't comply, whereas a petrol banger with 200k on the clock belching out blue smoke is fine apparently. I hope that they introduce more cameras. I cycle 3-4 times as many km as I drive so I should be the one rushing to give up the car but currently the ULEZ is too easy for me to avoid, it's still not enough of a nudge to get rid of the car completely!

Neither. Get Ikea instead. The build quality is excellent, the design and engineering of things like hinges and drawer runners is brilliant, there are countless options for everything and it's cheaper. Loads of aftermarket door companies too, you can just buy the carcasses and get different doors (we just went with Noremax and were able to order completely custom sizes so we have 2.7m floor-to-ceiling doors for a bespoke look). I've built many kitchens and unless you have 100k for Poliform then Ikea is your best bet.

Thanks, that may well be the problem.

Hi all, anyone else on Copleston Road or nearby experiencing low water pressure? For the past couple of days the electric shower has been refusing to heat the water (low pressure safety feature) and this morning the flow from the taps is pretty weak. Seems like there are a few other streets with issues, presumably from the cold weather.

Melbourne Grove?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > But it's not impressive is it - and remember that > was the very best case scenario taken from reports > extolling the virtues of LTNs - because from the > DV junction alone (if you apply the 11% stat) 6200 > cars will have to find another route. That's a > minimum of 6200 vehicles driving down roads they > previously didn't drive down - which goes some way > to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so much > more congested now. > > You see the problem now? The displacement roads > can't cope with the displacement so it won't get > better. When the council shuts Townley for periods > of the day then another east/west route across the > area gets closed and the problem is exacerbated. > > The people on the displacement roads can "sit > tight" forever as it won't ever get any better on > their roads. It's not a zero-sum game. The idea is that car journeys disappear, not that they get displaced to somewhere else. This mode will be replaced by walking, cycling and public transport, or just by not doing the journey in the first place.

11%? That's a pretty impressive result for any intervention like this. Crack on. And those who live on the currently (extra) polluted streets have the most to gain from all this, so yes they need to sit tight and wait for it to improve.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > micromacromonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl > > > > > > ay.aspx?id=500000049 > > > > > > 2069 now > > > > 2069 people who don't realise that driving to > the > > shops down the street of your choice is not a > > fundamental human right. > > > I don't drive - I don't even have a driving > licence. I signed the petition because I think it > is not fair to treat people living on the streets > that take the extra traffic now with significantly > more noise and pollution - do you? That would not be a valid reason to sign the petition though. This whole thing is being done as a nudge tactic to get people out of their cars. For this to happen, the situation has to be annoying enough for people to decide to take an alternative form of transport instead, or perhaps travel at a different time (or just not make the journey at all if it's not necessary). That's the phase we're in now. Temporarily raised pollution on some streets is 'collateral damage' I guess, although of course it's not a welcome situation. The BEST way to achieve the stated aim would be to apply statutory restrictions such as are currently applied in Mexico City, and have also been applied in Paris (based on pollution levels I think). In this model you get to drive your car every other day. I imagine that the naysayers here would be horrified by this option also.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl > ay.aspx?id=500000049 > > 2069 now 2069 people who don't realise that driving to the shops down the street of your choice is not a fundamental human right.