crackerjack

You would love it here today. Low cloud and drizzle and at 12:20 the temperature has just hit 6C. Was the same yesterday too. In the interests of balance expecting some sunshine tomorrow and return to double digit daytime temperatures. Won't be getting the garden furniture out just yet though but hopefully soon.

Your post reminded me, my fifteen year old daughter (who lives in Brisbane) sent me a snap chat the other day saying phew, only 25 degrees today. She can't wait for the Brisbane winter and loves her annual visit around Christmas to soak up some cold.

I'm the same. It's true for me to an extent. My mood is always better when the sun is out and it's a clear day. I do sometimes wonder if I suffer from SAD as during winter my mood is lower.

You may well do Britchix. I always think if your mood change is that noticeable its definitely worth investigating. I think there is treatment for it, a light box you sit in front of. Life's too short to spend months every year feeling blue.

I was just thinking, Denmark often ranks as the happiest country in the world or close to it. What's their weather like, so I looked it up.

It's almost identical to ours.

Maybe solidarity and equity are the true bedrock on which happiness is built? That's not to discount people who suffer with SAD in the winter. I just suspect the vast majority of people are not hugely affected by the weather (bar the obvious extremes), and simply accept it's many variances as part of life's rich tapestry.

http:// http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/14/sunny-days-no-difference-mental-wellbeing

Read this earlier and found it interesting. I know it's true for me. Only consistently long spells of particularly extreme weather, be it heat, heavy rain, or bitter cold, affects my mood and fortunately in our country, such extremes are rare. I do like a sunny day, cold or warm, but I wouldn't say it raises my mood significantly. What about other peeps?

Watch al, the way through if you have time, but if not, from about 17 minutes in they are talking about the media

In my teens I went on holiday to Hove with friends. Loved it! Hope it hasn't changed too much over the decades.

Hove is really nice. Both my brother and sister live there. Personally I prefer Worthing but only because I like living somewhere a bit quieter, with big stretches of empty beach, but I can see the appeal.

A wise person once said to me, don't end something until you are sure you won't want to go back. In your case if that means staying where you are, with your understandable niggles and doubts, so be it. You will have niggles and doubts in both places. Sometimes when we sit with uncertainty a certain peace comes to us and ironically it's when we feel more peaceful that we often feel on a gut level which way we should jump. At the moment you are frantic. As someone else said, breathe. No door is sealed shut. No need to panic.

I have some fond memories of living in Worthing for a year as a kid. Digging up worms during those long summer nights, when the tide out to fish at Shoreham, the fun of the pier, lived near to the beach so swam the whole summer. Beautiful Sussex countryside. Funny thing is that in all the following decades have only ever been back twice on day trips. Last time was 1989.

 

Go to Brighton frequently when back there and was looking at Eastbourne as a possible place to move to when seriously considered staying in England about five years ago, but never been there.

Sounds like you have very fond memories of this part of the world. It really is lovely and Worthing is thriving, developing a real street cafe culture. I think Brighton has got so expensive it's influence is spilling out into Worthing. Shorehams lovely too. When I'm feeling particularly energetic I walk to Shoreham.

I'm afraid I don't know Eastbourne too well but I had a lovely night away in Battle a few years back and the East Sussex country side is lovely. You are spoilt for choice round here.

That is somewhat disingenuous as the Guardian, Observer, Mirror, Sun, Daily Mail, Times, FT, and Independent have at one time i recent history supported Labour, and many would again, especially the first three.

Yes, they will support labour as long as they become tory lite as they did under Bliar so what use is that?

They hate ed m because he's taken the party a smidge to the left. If he threatened to be really socialist they would up the anti even more. I would even expect the mirror, it's one loyal supporter to withdraw support.

I thought you might find this link interesting.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspaper-support

Like I said to Britchix Stacey, not everyone is aware that what they are reading is propaganda. Newspapers do not have to abide by the same impartiality laws the tv media has to, though I've noticed the tv media read out paper headlines, perpetuating the myth that newspapers are neutral in their reporting. I think I first realised a bias when I was about twelve, during the minors strike. Our family read the mirror, my gran read the sun. The difference in the reporting was startling. peoples views are shaped by what they read in the papers. This is not a patronising statement as so many (usually tories who are more than happy for people to kid themselves their often tory supporting paper is not having any kind of influence on them) like to suggest. It's a fact. Companies spend millions on advertising because we are, all of us, open to suggestion. If everyday people read papers which are selling a particular narrative about the economy/country/immigration/trade unions/ etc etc, without the realisation that what they are reading is biased, then of coursw what they are reading informs their opinions. The reason the tories have been in power something like 100 years, compared to twenty five for labour, is not because they are the better party, it's because they are the richest party with the strongest media backing, a backing that has a huge influence on how people vote. I'm not saying it's the only influence, I'm just saying it's a major boon to the tories to have so much advertising they don't even have to pay for. In fact we pay for it ourselves when we buy our newspaper, and it's advertising we don't even realise we are being subjected to, making it doubly effective. With the growing advance of social media, newspaper readership is falling. This is shifting influence away from the rich and powerful and that can only be a good thing.

Anyway I've stayed up much later than I should so I bid you all a good night.

Just a few points to make before I go to bed. Firstly to Thorn, sorry if I made an assumption about your imperviosity. It's just when you were so blatantly using stereotypes yourself it seemed odd that you would point the finger at me for doing so. It's like a person five stone over weight pointing to another obese person and calling them fat and lazy. Something that would naturally raise eyebrows.

Britchix, thanks for admitting you weren't aware of the level of bias amongst the print media. It takes a certain strength of character to acknowledge we don't know something and you help prove my point in regard to the importance of these tv debates. Every day people read their papers not always realising they are reading an opinion paper rather than a news paper. Take this story about the debates. The telegraph reported 'Cameron stands up to the Broadcasters' painting him to be the victim standing up to the bullies. The guardian, a liberal paper, had the headline, broadcasters call Cameron bluff. Same story with demonstrably different slants to them depending on each papers particular allegiance. As most papers are owned and run by rich people, the majority support the tories, because quite frankly, the tory party is the party of the rich. Cameron knows this, so why appear in the TV debates. He gets all that support from the papers (the complete opposite of ed milibands position), and he also leads the best funded party thanks to all his rich friends, therefore can afford to spend three times what Labour can afford to spend on their election campaign (despite the fact the tories have a much smaller membership), the TV debates are just a risk he feels he doesn't have to take. It's too much exposure and under scrutiny he does not do well. On the other hand, ed miliband has been so scorned, mocked and vilified by the media, he only has to show up for his approval ratings to go up. The tory strategy of painting ed as some weak, incompetent Wallace look alike who can't even eat a bacon butty with panache, will only succeed if ed gets as little exposure as possible. Yes ed will be filmed out and about on the campaign trail, but that won't get a fraction of the viewers the TV debates will attract. So Cameron is desperately trying to scupper them. As for anyone who tries to tell you prime ministers questions is a debate, do not believe it for a second. The leader of the opposition asks questions of the prime minister, which the prime minister always fails to answer. It is all one way. The prime minister makes jibes at the leader of the opposition which he can't fully reply to due to the fact it is prime ministers question time not leader of the oppositions question time. A debate is only a debate when it's on a level footing. The TV debates will be, which is precisely why Cameron is trying his best to wriggle out of them.

Scottish Stacey. I heard Natalie Bennett gave a good conference speech. All politicians have the occasional car crash interview. Like you, I felt for her greatly. It's good to know she dusted herself off and gave a good speech to her party.

Millibean is a Private Eye cartoon character, a very apposite one. http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/strips/adventures_of_mr_milibean/1276.gif

 

Oh I see, it is used in the same way flashman is used to describe Cameron. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/12/david-cameron-bullying-flashman-turn-off-women-voters

 

Such lovely stereotyping you show, with just a hint of lefty thought police. Are people with right of centre views not allowed to comment here?

 

and Greeny loopies is not stereotyping? Is it not a touch arrogant to believe you are somehow impervious to the accusations you make of people to the left?

Night night

Thanks Ali for combining the two threads. As for people who use the terms Milibean and Greeny loopies. I highly recommend the telegraph comments pages. They are full of right wingers making equally vapid arguments. One recently advised my lovely thoughtful wife to 'go and boil your head you lefty troll'. I admit its hard to have faith in such people recognising they are being brainwashed by right wing media bias.

Great news. If Labour win the election they will enshrine leadership debates in law. No future PM will be able to wriggle out of them or veto them, including of course Ed M himself. This is good news for democracy. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/ed-miliband-leaders-tv-debates-guarantee-law

You think the press are right wing? You must be communist then. The only right wing paper I can think of is the Daily Mail and to be honest even they do not go overboard with actually supporting conservatives. On the TV, the BBC is blatantly left wing and the rest maybe try to be more neutral.

 

As to TV debate, it is pretty meaningless and shallow. If people really need help in making up their minds they should read manifestos not base it on a one hour TV performance. Didn't Nick Clegg do rather well last time? Doesn't that prove it is not the best way to decide who to vote for?

The Daily Telegraph Right, conservative Conservative Party

The Sunday Telegraph Centre-right, conservative

Financial Times Economically liberal, politically centrist Conservative

The Sunday Times Right Conservative Party

The Guardian Centre-left and social-liberal Liberal Democrats

The Observer Centre-left, social-liberal

The Independent Economically liberal, politically centre-left Liberal Democrats

The Times Centre-right Conservative Party

Independent Print Limited Centre-left, liberal views

Daily Mail Right Conservative Party

Daily Express Right Conservative Party

The Mail on Sunday Right Conservative Party

The Sun conservative Conservative Party

The Sun on Sunday conservative

Daily Mirror left-wing, populist Labour Party

Sunday Mirror left-wing, populist Labour Party

Daily Star conservative

Daily Star Sunday conservative

This is a fairly comprehensive list of most newspapers and the parties they support. Only one paper supports Labour. 12 support the conservatives. Personally I don't think you have to be a communist to recognise the bias. Also the old adage that the BBC is left wing has died a death. It may once have been true, but now it is recognised to lean the other way. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias--on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html

This is why the tv debates are so important. A whole two hours where people get to see the leaders through their own eyes, not through the selective lens of a right wing paparazzi determined to capture the most ridiculous shot possible.

To be fair I don't think ive ever watched prime minister questions, only first minister questions. I was just going by what I've watched on tv and he doesn't seem like he would be that great

Stacey its so hard to get a view of PMQs from the news. I sometimes find myself shouting at the tv because they have missed out the best bit in their one minute snap shot. Yes Ed has his bad weeks, but he us a far more adroit performer than the media would have us believe. I've attached an article that I found interesting. It was written by the spectator deputy editor Peter Oborne, one of the rare right wing journalists with integrity (he recently resigned from the telegraph, claiming they tried to stifle his reporting of the HSBC crisis - because HSBC advertise in the telegraph). Despite their opposing political persuasions, he is a huge admirer of Milibands.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9438172/ed-milibands-biggest-critics-dont-hate-him-for-how-hes-failed-they-hate-him-for-how-hes-succeeded/

Personally I think the TV debates are a waste of time and money. A reflection of voting for personalities rather than policies. Its unlikely Cameron will get much of a boost if he does well, and if he does badly then more likely to reflect badly on him.

TV debates are not a fundamental part of the democratic process though. They are a relatively recent US import which allows the designated winners throw trivial sound bites at one another. I can only applaud Cameron for his stance. I hate these TV debates. If you want to know more on policies etc then read the manifestos, pick up a newspaper, study the previous form and achievements of the politician concerned. Don't base your decisions on an hour long farce.

 

TV debates just pushes people towards soundbite politics. Passion and conviction are merely decoys to assist in the cover up the lies, soundbites and empty promises that are made at these debates. Its slightly entertaining listening to the excuses and evasion for the 90 minutes duration but nothing meaningful is achieved other than determining who can come across as the most convincing liar.

 

However, given performances at PMQs I can't imagine a circumstance where Milliband could 'win' a debate with a dead badger let a lone a real live human. I cannot for the life of me see any sense in having 7 people involved in a televised political debate. Question Time struggles at times with only 4 or 5 participants.

You start off at the beginning of your comment by making some valid points regarding the reading of manifestos etc, but in reality most people will read the newspapers, the vast majority of which are tory supporting. This biased paper media is then regurgitated by a lazy tv media, who always neglect to mention the sources bias. Ed miliband has been vilified by the media (when you stand up to murdoch you are always going to be punished) and the TV debates will provide a rare opportunity for the public to see him unmitigated by the right wing press. I watch pmq's every week and he frequently wipes the floor with Cameron, who is very much cushioned from negative scrutiny by his friends in the press. I totally get why Cameron is running scared, especially when it is generally agreed he performed badly in 2010 and he knows Ed M is far better than the media give him credit for, I just don't think he should be allowed to veto the debates for everyone else. If he doesn't turn up they need to go ahead regardless. The public want these debates. They should go ahead.

Thanks stacy. It's reached 367 in just over a day! So glad the broadcasters say they are going ahead despite desperate Dave's pathetic protest. Let's hope they stick to it.

Hi guys. Would any of you be so kind as to sign this petition about the TV debates created by my wife today. If it got up to 100 it would make her day. Thanks https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/don-t-let-cameron-veto-the-tv-debates

I meant to say stepdaughters at the end, sorry.

My ex wife's husband was a loss adjuster in the UK earning 50k a year. He swapped that for the same job but now earning $87k a year. A pay cut in real terms I believe.

If you are open to anywhere on the south coast may I not so humbly fly the flag for Worthing, in West Sussex, my adopted town (I'm from Liverpool originally, but have lived with in London or Sussex since I was fifteen). Its really become a thriving town with a lively sense of community. And we are only a stones throw from Brighton and Chichester, both lovely shopping towns with very distinct characters. The beach is pebbly but its clean and there is sand to walk on when the tides out. It's also empty a lot of the time so you can always find a quiet spot for a BBQ without bothering anyone. Fifteen minute drive west and you will find sandy beaches. We also have the wonderful downs just behind us, great for walks and summer picnics. And we are only an hour and fifteen minute train journey to London Victoria. I love living here. I think its got everything. (Pic taken on firework night when the council lay on a free firework display.)

This reminds me of all the discussions about climate, which at the end of the day boil down to we are all different. My kids moved to Brisbane with their mum and step dad three years ago after I lost a court case to prevent the move. Some people wondered why I was standing in the way of my children experiencing this wonderful new life, and probably deep down thought I was selfish. Some totally understood, and were disgusted with my ex for separating my children from me. My kids were probably horribly torn I'm sure. Three years on, my nineteen year old is very settled and happy. It took my youngest longer which was understandable, and she's still doing badly at school. But it has got better for her in other ways (a boyfriend helps). However she still tells me and her family she's coming back as soon as she leaves school. I think she tells herself that so she doesn't feel trapped and ironically I think that helps her feel more settled, if that makes sense. Either way, whether they stay or come back, I just want them to be happy. Three years on for me, I have gradually adjusted to life without them in it, but the pain I felt over the loss of them I wouldn't wish on my worse enemy.

To the original poster, I feel for your mum so much. In fact reading your post brought tears to my eyes because when my ex first told me about the move I felt like my world was falling apart. Just give her time. It is as others say grief she is experiencing/anticipating. While I appreciate the sentiment a parent should stand by your decisions, I also think its healthier to get all feelings out in the open. Everyone can see through a stiff upper lip so what's the point of having one? I had to be strong because my kids were still kids, but you are an adult, that makes a difference. Besides I always thought the Mediterranean way, with the weeping and the wailing and the wringing of hands, to be healthier. You will also be grieving for the loss of your mum in your life, so why not share that with her. Let her know it's not an easy decision, that you will miss her too. Life is messy and complicated. There is no point in tying it up in a neat package. It will only burst out if you do. On the positive side, the grief does ease. Three years on and it's no longer the first thing I think about when I open my eyes (or rarely at least). I still miss them but its less sharp. It does help that one of my lovely daughters made me a grandad in the same year my children left. She's a real ray of sunshine. But I suppose that brings me back to how hard it must be for your mum to say goodbye to her grandchildren.

I suppose among all this waffle is a message. It's never going to be easy. Saying goodbye will hurt and I don't think anyone should hide perfectly normal feelings. You are all adults. Your mum will hurt, but so will you. Just because you're the one who is leaving doesn't mean you won't be grieving too. You both need lots of love and understanding and support. Time will smooth the hard edges off the grief. And I wish you all the luck in the world.

Surely our response to climate is purely subjective. My son and daughter have lived in Brisbane for three years. My daughter never stops moaning about the climate in the summer, and when she visits us in our winter refuses to wear a coat, as if she's soaking up the cold like a rechargeable battery. My son seems to love the heat though. Different strokes for different folks.

I am a GP. When I refer, I do a mental health care plan, and refer to a psychologist. You get a number of free sessions, or subsidised, but that quickly runs out. I have a problem with psychologists in general, in that many of them are plainly loopy. I love psychology, but am careful about which psychologists I refer to, as I find that some patients have the psychologists own problems compounded into their own issues. So simply getting a name is, for me, less happy - I like to get feedback from the patient. How is this helping you? Are you on the same page, do you feel you are getting the right "vibes" from this person?

 

It may be that there is a game going on with the psychologist, who needs a steady source of income - see me in 2 weeks and we will continue. The psychological issues become permanent.

 

Finding a psychologist could be as simple as checking with the Medicare Local for her area. But you still will be half a world away from getting real information. It will not simply be a matter of "how much" but "who" and "why" and "is it helping" - and you are going to be cut off from that.

 

Might I suggest that you try reversing the problem. Suggest that you are happy yo pay for a school trip. Get the school to liaise with you, and you can see what kind of expenses she is really incurring from school trips. If you go with paying for a psychologist, you are really condemning yourself to being out of control. Managing the expenses for school trips puts you in control. Your ex will hate the idea.

Great idea doc. Thanks. I will give that a try!