DJKillaQueen

So what do you replace HB with then because revenue will still need to be paid to someone and there will still need to be provision for those with no income? It's also a bit naive to blame high rents on HB as though cheap mortgages and other factors particular to speculation in housing as a commodity had nothing to do with it.

Local authorities already have the power to force succeeded tenants to downsize and offer incentives to other tenants to downsize. Southwark however have not bothered most of the time to use those powers. Also Southwark Council already uses short probationary tenancies for new tenants (usually of a year) and a secure tenancy is only offered after that. Any changes the coalition brings in will only apply to NEW tenancies and it is doubtful those new measures will do anything to improve the quantity of housing stock available as the majority of council tenants who work are in low paid jobs and tend to stay in low paid jobs. The issue of charging up to 80% of market rents will be totally at the discretion of the local authority and can only be done until 2016. After that rents and rents rises will be subject to convergence and cannot be raised above 1% above inflation year on year. The housing benefit proposals just haven?t been thought through. Firstly the proposal to reduce HB for the long term unemployed after a year by 10% may well face a legal challenge. The base rate of benefit (ie JSA) cannot be reduced because that would require a judicial review of what is thought to be the minimum a person needs to live on, and in the current climate any review is likely to find that it actually needs to be increased. So this HB reform may well be challenged as a method to reduce the value of the base rate of benefit via an essential benefit. The proposal for capping benefits is also a red herring. HB already is capped, but at a level relative to average local rents. The proposal is to reduce the cap to a level below average local rents and flatten the cap nationally. This means that the numbers of properties those reliant on HB can afford will be reduced, at a time when there is already a shortage of affordable housing. To me it is a measure likely to see a return to families being housed in expensive B&B accommodation because local authorities cannot find somewhere affordable to house them. The hope is that private landlords will be forced to drop rents but the evidence is that this is not happening. Rents are increasing and private landlords are simply making their properties unavailable to those on HB. A third of people in full time work require some level of HB because their salaries alone are not enough to pay their rent. The shortage of social housing has been created by many things. The sale of almost 50% of local authority housing through right to buy along with a shortage of affordable housing in the private sector are the main reasons, but also a growing population in the south east has meant it is drastically short of affordable housing whilst other areas of the country have a surplus. Unfortunately the areas with surplus housing tend also to be the areas with highest unemployment. It?s worth also pointing out that there is no shortage in housing, just affordable housing, and Immigration is NOT the primary cause of that crisis Tarot ? the over inflated housing market is the primary cause of the lack of affordable housing. On immigrants and benefits?you really do not know what you are talking about here Tarot. Asylum seekers are not eligible for standard benefits. Also illegal migrants waiting for right to stay are not eligible for housing or benefits. Most migrants to this country are from the EU and have a legal right to move here just as we have a legal right to move to anywhere within the EU. The vast majority of migrants are legal.

It's real life KK but only something that the young and mobile can really adapt to. There are many people that can't move, for many good reasons. And a good society is one that is balanced, fair, and has a certain level of compassion. We are a wealthy country and shouldn't have or be failing on some of the things we do. Opportunity isn't something that should only belong to the young and mobile.

But MP you are an intelligent guy, probably with a good education, qualifications etc and used to a flexible jobs market. If you were a 50 something man living in a small town with a family who had worked in one industry for life, with not many formal qualifications then it isn't so easy. That typified the kind of worker most affected by that era. There was absolutely no forethought as to what would become of these people. Micheal Hesaltine was perhaps the only cabinet member that tried to do something and Thatcher hated him ultimately. Even today, most 50 something's made redundent find themselves on the scrapheap. You are absolutely right KK that many made a lot of money but the world has never been fair in that repsect by rewarding hard work and talent in equal measure. My honest opinion is that fiscally they had essentially the right policies but went too far to the right - and that was more about ideology than good economics. In other words, good wealth creation, but poor distribution. For policies like clause 28 though, they had no excuses.

It was a profitable company and the result was that a good service was replaced by a terrible understaffed service. I don't deny something had to change (after the decline as you rightly say since the second world war) but they replaced it with NOTHING, in the misguided belief that the free market would take care of it. Millions of people left the North - they had to (I was one of them). And nothing typified their lack of compassion more than Tebbits 'get on your bike' speech. And you are right, the following labour government didn't do enough either in that respect. Downsizing though in many cases is simply about minimising costs and maximising profits and there was no minimum wage (something else that government vehently opposed).

Not as many as you think KK and what a great policy that was, because now 25 years on we have a housing market that has a dire shortage of social and affordable housing. MP....I can perfectly understand why many will not be sad to see Thatcher die. It's not because they are shameful but because she affected them or their families lives in a way they find hard to forgive. At the end of the day she and her cabinet had little compassion for them.

Huguenot you are wrong in this one respect. The company my father worked for was a profitable company. There was absolutely no reason for it to be deregulated, privatised and then downsized (for nothing more thsn the maximisation of profit). Unions had absolutely nothing to do with many of Thatchers policies and certainly had nothing to do with my father being forced into early retirement. For many people living in the North Thatcher meant one thing only. There is nothing wrong with reform (where it makes sense) but the Thatcher government did little to regenerate those areas devastated by it's policies. These people really were hung out to dry for generations.

They need to stay injury free next season and they need to sort out their midfield too. They conceded soft goals this season and far to many times took a good 20 mins to get into a game, esp the flat midfield. 'The Whippet' is a great player though.

Thatcher had intolerance for all sorts of things and people. Unions and public services for a start. The most blatent act of state sanctioned prejudice was clause 28 - ask any gay person old enough to remember about Thatcherite intolerance.

Like the tolerance that Thatcher showed perhaps?

He did have a band and he also wrote theme tunes for many television shows. He was only 53. So sad.

Thatcher's policies destroyed my father and I can't find any part of me that will care when she is gone.

So it's just a subversive attempt to annexe ED to Bromley then????? :))

Ty Frankito...and besides...it would be no fun if you were either talking to yourself or had nothing to chew on!!!!! Might even get some bolt cutters and unlock the gates for ya.....just to be nice :))

The play off final is an away match.

No it's not the coalition that brought it about, it was a condition of the Lib Dems for helping the Tories into government. David Cameron never wanted this referendum but it is the price he had to pay to get a majority government.

Well the point of closing the park at night is for public protection as much as anything. Sure, vandals and the like will get in anyway. I think the Bowling Green hut was burned down while the park was closed for example. But I don't think we should make it as easy as possible for vandals and robbers to get in to the park nor encourage people to be walking in there at night. Unlocked gates would I believe increase the likelihood of crime and vandalism. There is no lighting in the park either.

Yes it is...use the common or the one open gate and stop moaning. :))

And I think the example I gave above demonstrated exactly why minority parties still won't miraculously get in under AV. Totally with H on this and tbh have heard not a single sensible argument for voting no, beyond obvious motives of self preservation by a certain party.

Just think it's a bit indulgent to ask for a park to open earlier to walk your dog when there's a perfectly good common adjacent to use. And sunrise still repquires employing and paying staff for extra hours. In the current economic climate there are I think far more important things for a council to be spending their money on.

Yes any desire to smack Nick Clegg by voting no is foolish (and trust me I'd love to have voted no for that reason). I saw a little piece last night on TV that succinctly explained how the stystem works. So in the election, counting the first choice on the voting papers, lets say that, Conservative get 35%, Labour get 30%, Libs get 20%, An Other 15% So no one candidate has achieved 50%.....so the lowest polling candidate 'An other' is removed, and from the ballot papers of those that voted for 'An Other' as their first choice, the second choice votes are taken and added to the other three parties. So now we have Conservative 40%, Labour 38%, Lib Dems 22% So still no-one has passed the 50% mark......so next the Lib Dems as the next lowest polling party are removed and from their Ballot papers the second preference votes are added, or third preference if the second preference was for 'An Other'. Now we have Consevative 46% Labour 54% Labour win. That I think illustrates just how AV works and how in smaller majority holding seats it can make a difference. One argument given for AV is that it would increase the percentage of seats that actually decide an election, because at the moment, so many seats are safe seats with high majorities that the number of seats that actually decide which of two parties get power is woefully small as a percentage. AV would increase that percentage and that seems right to me.

The official opening hour for all Southwarks parks is 8am. The park has to be staffed by wardens when open. Those wardens are not paid to be there at 6 am. What part of staffing costs can you not understand? The park officially opens at 8...live with it. There's a perfectly good common a short walk away. And yes I do sense the whiff of a troll on this one!!!!!

But rightly so. Those are the times set by the council. They don't pay staff to be there at 6 am!

It's a five minute (ten at most) walk the extra distance to the common. The council pay the wardens to be on duty during the opening times. Last time I spoke with the Parks Manager they were facing cuts so I hardly think extending opening hours so that you can walk your dog is sensible, do you? Edited to say that opening and closing times are set borough wide.

Apparently the CIA are considering relesing photographs because of the growing demands for proof. I think it would be the right thing to do irregardless of the sensitivities, for the greater good.