Marmora Man

I can't see the logic of either the criticism of the concept or the cynicism. It's surely good to take soundings and ask our opinon - you don't have to take part but having the opportunity is surely a positive. As for the cynicism - I don't subscribe. On the whole most politicians do, regardless of persuasion, want to do good and make things better. I believe this coalition is tackling the country's problems in a sensible and rational fashion - without histrionics, without too much spin and with a refreshing degree of honesty.

All - please note that this idea is NOT a current coalition gov't plan. It has been proposed by NICE and supported by other quangos. This gov't is going to hit us hard - mostly because of previous reckless spending, but as yet raising cost of a unit of alcohol doesn't feature in their plans.

Easties EL - even if you were right, which I don't believe, your contribution adds nothing to the debate. No ideas, alternatives or solutions. I consider US political rhetoric to be way over the top, their desire to blame it all on BP is childish - the drilling operation and hundreds of other similar rigs & technology were approved by the US administration. Oil leaks such as this can appear dramatic but, ultimately, have little if any impact on wildlife and the natural environment. I am pleased that technology has found a partial solution to contain and reduce the leak until BP can drill another well or two to reduce the pressure and stop this leak. It's a small example of man's ability to think and act to defeat even the biggest problems.

We moved into one house to find not only bare wires where previously there had been light fittings but also holes in the garden where previously there had been roses and other shrubs. Then, three years later, when we had to sell up to find somewhere we could share with elderly parents [here in ED] we received a letter from the previous owner accusing us of quote "making an excessive profit" on their much loved family home.

David - I'm with you on the libertarian issues. To be fair to this new gov't it's not themn that's proposing this but quangos (NICE & NHS) and the medical fraternity - particularly the Royal College of Physicians

Does the forum think that proposal to establish a minimum cost for a unit of alcohol is: a. The ultimate nanny state interference? b. Social engineering? c. An infringement of individual and commercial rights? It is said that a 10% rise in the cost of a unit of alcohol will reduce demand by 5%. Thus for 20 heavy drinkers at risk of poor health - one will be dissuaded. Those of us lucky enough to be able to afford a glass of wine at Green & Blue or a few pints at The Bishop won't be affect by the fact that supermarket own brand lager and White Lightening cider would cost up to ?1.00 a go more - but the less well off among us will have their opportunity to take a drink restricted by price. On the other hand - a 5% reduction in alcohol related disease could mean 1,000 less deaths a year, 10,000 less drink related crime and a major reduction in A&E admissions over a weekend as the result of binge drinking. Given these points and others that may be raised by readers - would you support the proposed increase or not?

Ladymuck Wrote: I take your point that, looking at ways of improving parenting, might be perceived by some as > excessive control by the Government. Do, for example, mandatory vaccination programmes > constitute a Nanny State? It's certainly debatable - given what is at stake (e.g., in the > case of bovine TB, the welfare of cattle and, ultimately, of those who consume its meat). And > so it is with improving parenting as a method of counteracting the negative impact which poverty > can have on a child's intellectual development. It would not be about seeking to control or even > intervene, but more about educating parents - though I acknowledge such a proposal might appear > patronising to some. But come now Mr. H, you yourself are not averse to educating various > members of the public when convenient to your particular argument at a given time? Have a look at Centre for Social Justice - Family Policy that advocates much greater support for families, particularly during first three years, as a way out of the dysfunctional cycle that many are trapped in. With Iain Duncan Smith as a Minister perhaps some of these ideas will get a decent chance of implementation

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These guys fought back well today. There may still > be a game on here. Agree - and it was good to see their opener, Tamin, make his century. A tad embarrassing tho' for England in their Ashes preparation year, a very ordinary bowling attack for most of the day. Would having Broad in the bowling line up rather than Finn / Bresnan have made a difference on the relatively lifeless pitch? Edited for spelling

Does anyone know what's going on here? On the corner of Peckham Rye & The Gardens there's obviously a lot of development in hand but to what end? It looks over Peckham Rye and could be a great site for a high end restaurant but I've seen no clues

Now is pretty good - the years leading up to it were fun and I'm looking forward to the future. Glass half full views are usually the best - comparing the past with present is fraught, selective memory fades the pain and highlights the pleasure.

Is this line going to make it easier to get to the Olympic stadium in 2012? Will it go direct to Stratford or will we have to change somewhere, I like the idea of a direct route to the Olympics - would take out a lot of hassle. On same subject has anyone signed up for Olympic tickets yet? Does doing so give you any advantage when tickets are released?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A few years back a whole bunch of us used to go to > the Oval Friday for every test every year for a > good 10 years or so. We started with breakfast in > the Fox (?) in Smithfield at 8AM, full English and > two pints of Guinness plus you could take all you > could carry in in those days. I very rarely > remembered anything from tea onwards...apart from > the arrests (only one year). Quids - it was the Fox & Anchor and I've been drinking (and eating their breakfasts) there since 1972. Unfortunately, it became incorporated into a Malmaison hotel about two years ago and has lost the special ambience it used to have. No longer do you see a Smithfield porter eating a massive fry up with a pint, next to a City gent eating his fry up with a glass of claret who's sitting alongside some night nurses from Barts Hospital replenishing after a hard night's duty. The Bishop's Finger remains and was, at least 6 months ago. still serving a decent pint of Shepherd Neame. Also - regrettably all cricket clubs with the honourable exception of Lords now seem to ban alcohol - clearly an economic argument cos' you can still drink as much as you want of their gnats p*** beer or their EU wine lake p*** poor wine rather than bring in a decent glass of something.

Brendan, I have been following this thread with an ever growing sense of incredulity. Your arguments, apparently based on some form of hatred of landlords, are economic hogwash. Your latest is even more so. You appear to want everyone in the country to own their own home and have no rental market at all. The idea that there should be no rented housing and no social housing is illogical. The former allows anyone / everyone the freedom to move about with minimal costs - selling up and buying again is a huge disincentive in time and costs to taking a job on Scotland if living in London or London if living in Scotland. Social housing allows those on the lowest rungs of the economy to have, what should be, a decent roof over their heads - and also allows them freedom of movement as well. Freedom of movement is an essential part of a flourishing economy, but something that UK doesn't do very well. Why did hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans move to UK to take up work yet very few from impoverished WElsh valleys, or Tyneside terraces? Your solution would make the people that contribute to the UK economy live in a rigid and costly system that locks them into a locality. Social housing, moreover, is something that provides a house until death - not just to the end of a working life - which was one of your earlier illustrations. Rigging the market seldom works - special tax breaks or tax penalties are not a good idea. The latest Lib / Con CGT proposal would affect the BTL market and, slowly, start to adjust the balance. Personally I'd support a proper flat tax with a decent tax threshold - any earnings (personal or business) from anything that are in excess of ?10K should be taxed at, say, 25% but there should be no other form of tax at all. The tax take to gov't would increase, avoidance becomes almost impossible and above all it is simple and transparent. Everyone has 75% of their earnings + ?10,000 to do what they will with.

Karrie, you have been very coy about the actual problem you belive your MP and others are not helping you with. I can think of very few problems that cannot be, if not solved, at least alleviated, through good advice and support from the right quarter. As Hugenot and I have said an MP is not elected to be a social worker / counsellor/ citizens advice centre, despite the fact that, on occassions they fulfill all these roles. This forum has a very wide range of readers with a wide range of life and knowledge of many areas. If you feel able to describe your problem you may be surprised by the knowledge base that can be applied to it by EDF members.

Karrie - you express a commonly held misbelief that has, regrettably over the course of perhaps 30 years, become almost fact. Originally MPs were elected to represent their constituency - not as a delegate to "protect" or "defend" the area and its people but as the person from that area who would take part in the framing of legislation and the management of parliamentary affairs. Many MPs barely visited their constituency and focused their life upon parliament. Since sometime around the 60's as actual government has become more centralised, presidential and less open to parliamenatary scrutiny, MPs have become more of a form of superior social worker. They are now expected to work on behalf of the constituents when other avenues have failed - much of the time this involves them in either some form of pork barrel politics - trying to obtain grants and projects in their area or in writing, on behalf of disgruntled constituents, to various government departments in the hope that a letter signed by an MP will move the hearts of some monolithic gov't office. The former role is a more honourable one - the latter fills the time of backbenchers that have little else to do but be lobby fodder.

boosboss Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > espelli Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bizarrely, suspending a small plastic bag full > of > > water above the open window works. Have no idea > > why or how! > > > The bag needs to be clear. Apparently, the flies > see a much bigger reflection of themselves and > stay away. It's a common practice in Spain. Perhaps that why they are seen hanging in fishmongers - partic in BOrough Market?? Will give it a try and report back.

We still have lots of swifts on Marmora Road - last night sitting out on our little roof terrace as the sun set we saw masses of them wheeling around the house - some even flying within a couple of feet of our heads.

Since the coalition took power there has been criticism of the make up of both the government and the Houses of Parliament for being unrepresentative. The theme has been taken up in this weekend's papers too. There appears to be a strong strand of opinion that in order to be representative any organisation should reflect the the balance of the country. That is in Parliament the 652 MPs should be 51% women, 49% men, 14% ethnic minorities, < 1% old Etonians, 24% working class, 71% middle class, 5% upper class, 0.03% transgender, 8% homosexual, 1% millionaires and 99% struggling to get by on their salary - or something similar. I find the argument unpersuasive. Individual MPs represent wildly varying numbers of people in their constituency - and cannot, by definition, be representative of the constituency's make up. It's the calibre of the individual MP that counts, not their background. Think Tony Benn - hardly a horny handed man of toil yet a more committed socialist champion would be hard to find. Our own local MP - Ms Harriet Harman MP QC is hardly representative of inner city London yet, illogically, she is a flag waver for the representative argument. I would prefer my MP to be an honest, intelligent, well read, socially aware, caring and committed person that understands how the Houses of Parliament works and how to wield influence in the corridors of power - that person could be male or female, an ex coal miner or an old Etonian, child of an immigrant or an heir to a baronetcy dating from 1066. The proposition is therefore: "This house believes that it is not necessary to be representative in order to represent effectively" Supplementary "This house believes that quotas and positive discrimination are not good for parliament, government or business" Discuss Edited for clarity

A god business needs a product & market as Narnia has said but it also requires a process / system that can make (or obtain) the product, market and sell it at a profit. That means you need a good understanding of the cost base, that in turn allows you to understand the cost of the product to you - knowing the price the market will pay for the product then gives you a gross profit margin. If your product can be made / obtained and sold at a gross profit you will then need to determine the other costs of the business (staff, rent, rates, taxes, interest on loans, utility bills, and so on) to determine whether you can make a net profit. Don't forget the cost of capital - you'll probably need to borrow money from a bank or an investor for the start up cash - this will need to be paid back - that's the cost of capital. Equally you may need to have access to money from a bank in the form of an overdraft or short term loan to cover the day to day running costs of the business, such as rent, staff salaries, suppliers and other bills - this is your working capital. Once the business is up and running successfully working capital can be provided from profits and reserves, but for the first year or so you'll need to pay staff, pay suppliers, pay rent and so on before the profits from selling your product have arrived. The profit you will draw upon as salary, remembering of course to re-invest some of your profit in the business (into reserves) to develop it (by improving the premises, buying new manufacturing equipment, running a special marketing campaign and so on) and develop new products.

Do you really believe that had the election result been different a Labour government would not also have been planning major cuts in government spending. It was Alastair Darling that said that the necessary cuts would be the hardest ever, deeper and more prolonged than those of the early 80's. Reducing government spending is an economic necessity not a political stance. Opposing them is economic illiteracy not principled purity.

What a strange stance. Renting and buying are very different life choices. Not everyone wants to buy a house / flat, many wish to rent: a. While they decide if they like the area b. To see if they can find a job c. While they look for a house d. While they save up for a house e. Because they cannot afford to commit themselves to the long term financial implications f. Because they just like to be flexible If everyone owned a house options to move around the country freely would be restricted. If the state provided all rented property it would be bureaucratic, costly, normally poorly maintained, take twice as long to move in / out. A privately provided rental sector is an essential element of our mobile society - it's not immoral, illegal or socially unwelcome, quite the reverse in fact.

How do I keep flies out of the house. We're lucky enough to live in a tall Victorian house with a small roof terrace. The spare bedroom (aka the study) looks out onto the terrace and London - I like to keep the door open while working if weather is fine. However, every bloody fly in SE22 seems to gradually rise to the top of the house and dance around the study. I've tried flypapers but they avoid them. Fly sprays are not the sort of solution I'm thinking of and anyway the effect would be diluted by fresh air. What can I do?

Nice to have agreement across the political divide! One of my concerns is that the gradual growth, over the last five decades, of state funded solutions to help the weaker etc can, certainly sometimes and perhaps too often, weaken the will of the greater society to help their brethren. EG: Is it easier to sling "old grandad" into a council funded care home than look after him and his needs within the family? Is it easier to walk past the rough sleeper knowing that "the state and my taxes" are providing shelters rather than joining a charity and handing out soup, clean clothes, advice and shelter to help the man back into work? I'm not suggesting a return to a "lady of the parish" handing out baskets of goodies to the deserving poor - but I do believe we can all do more to help others in ways that go beyond simply paying taxes for the state to dole out the help. It doesn't have to be an obvious direct link - becoming a volunteer with a youth group (scouts, cadets, youth clubs, art clubs, boxing club etc etc) can sometimes help youngsters avoid the gangs, knives & crime trap. Helping as a volunteer with an adult reading class could achieve more to help an unemployed person than the same person attending a Job Centre "clinic". How to generate, develop, accelerate a desire to help with solutions is therefore perhaps an even more critical question.

And now Dianne Abbot is standing - epitome of New Labour values but sends son to fee paying elite school. Don't mind either position but combining the two is hypocritical.

For David Carnell: A rambling reply from a right of centre perspective. I will admit being a member of the Conservative Party ? because it is the closest I can get, in electability terms, to my preference of a Libertarian low tax, small government. You mention that you felt there was a chance of being excited by politics again. Fighting the good fight etc? and go on to describe Cameron as the perfect political foe ? but don?t say why. Surely the analytical observer that you are has reasons and an argument to explain why? Equally, I cannot subscribe to your view that the next 5 years is going to be the nadir of British fortune. That it is going to be tough ? I don?t doubt. That there will be big cuts in public spending I am certain. That this will affect many hundreds of thousands, if not millions. I agree. However, these will not be malicious acts of class warfare ? which is what the hard left is already tooling itself up to claim. They will be the necessary, and often reluctant, actions of a responsible government to tackle a major problem. You wanted Jon Cruddas ? I?d agree he?s a clear thinker who can articulate the left of centre argument well. However, he?s arguing for a tactical / strategic need to reconnect with Labour?s core vote; I would suggest this is a form of delusional thinking. Political parties should not be tribal representatives ? bashing ?them? and supporting ?us?. I would wish to have individuals of any political persuasion ? left, right and centre that can see the wider picture, and make a case for rational change or improvement. Frank Field springs to mind for Labour and, intriguingly Iain Duncan Smith for the Conservatives ? perhaps there?s something about he area they both wish to tackle that makes for serious and sensible thinking. Such individuals do not need to be in power to wield power. Why do you seek ideological zeal? It may be fun, it may be exciting, it?s probably rather like life back at university in the debating club, but it?s not grown up politics. Michael Foot might have said that the only certain good and great purpose was to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. It?s not a bad slogan but it?s not a solution. The big question is surely HOW can we provide for the weaker etc etc? The radio has just reported that Jon McDonnell will stand. I expect him to lose comprehensively. None of the other candidates have yet said anything remotely interesting or anything that persuades me that they are developing a rational argument for left of centre politics. Maybe you (Labour) need a big defector from Lib Dems to put the argument for you? Maybe the 21st century is going to be a liberal era ? with individual rights and responsibilities trumping state solutions? Maybe not ? but I haven?t yet heard anything that suggest the current crop of candidates are doing anythingmore than debate about how best to win power ? when they should be worrying about how best to develop and implement solutions to the ills they perceive and then go out and try to persuade others to adopt those policies. If enough are persuaded - power follows. It was Blair's curse to find he had won power but had no intellectual hinterland to call on to help him do something truly radical or positive with it.