Zebedee Tring

Below is an extract from today's "Grauniad" comment page: "... there are 30m-40m actual or potential bedrooms nationwide not slept in every night ... The tiny fraction of these found in council housing are being aggressively pursued through the bedroom tax; public policy takes no responsibility - and shows no interest - in what happens with the rest". I couldn't have put it better myself.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the government should reintroduce Schedule A tax (which was abolished in 1963), thereby taxing the notional rent payable on a property and assessed on the property's value. This could be considerable in the case of, say, a multi-million property in Kensington Palace Gardens. Not only would it dampen down the value of properties, enabling people to get on to the property ladder, but it would provide a very healthy source of taxation, which could used to fund the NHS etc.

Rachmanism was one of the great curses of the late 50s and early 60s until rent controls were re-established in 1964. We basically are back to rampant Rachmanism today in many areas, with the added disadvantage that the type of people who could have afforded to buy in those days can't do so now.

Perhaps unlurked should change his user name/nom de plume to "troll"; it might be more appropriate.

That's what I thought too, PokerTime

Is anyone really suggesting that ?150K is a normal income for an ED couple or family? What is the evidence for this? ?150K for the more expensive parts of Dulwich Village maybe, but ED?

What about reintroducing the old Schedule A tax which was abolished about 50 years ago? People would then be taxed on the notional rent that they would have earned if they had rented out their property. It was the abolition of this tax that was one of the main causes of rampant property inflation from the 60s onwards since it made property ownership much more desirable than, say, in Germany. Someone will no doubt now say on this thread that this would be an invasion of their civic liberties, although not only Labour but also Conservative governments before the early 60s managed to live with it. However, it would certainly dampen property prices down a bit and make London properties more affordable for those wishing to enter the property market.

I forgot the other great clich? de nos jours, namely that the ED Deli is a National Treasure (irony alert).

Part of our DNA? Are you trying to get into Private Eye? Please see my post above re ED Deli Food Standards Agency hygiene rating.

For a second, e-dealer, I thought that you were suggesting that Brian had been to the vet for the unkindest cut of all. But all he lost was the chairmanship of Borchester Land, tho' I suspect that his designs on Annabelle's body are now over.

Spurs winning and Arsenal losing on the same day.

If there were two girls with that name in the school, the older one would no doubt be known as Labia Majora and the younger one Labia Minora.

I agree, WW. This backs my argument that having a go at Picturehouse alone is aiming at the wrong target, since they seem to be among the few employers who are committed to LLW.

I have already expressed my support on this thread for the concept of the Living Wage. However, I would be glad if someone would answer the following questions: (a) Assuming that the ED cinema get planning permission, if, at the time that it is due to open, Picture House is not paying its staff the Living Wage, would you prefer that the cinema stay shut? (b) If you would prefer this, are you prepared to ask all other shops in ED who do not pay the Living Wage to close their doors? I have already asked whether anyone knows what percentage of ED businesses do not pay the Living Wage. Any answers on this? If people ARE concerned about the Living Wage issue, they should be pursuing this issue as well. Or are they just playing gesture politics as far as Picture House are concerned?

I agree with what you say, Tradesman 32. I was only joking in my earlier post.

And surely this thread is about the desirability of having a new cinema in ED and not about the desirability of firms paying the Living Wage. For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support the principle of a Living Wage, a property tax or better graduated Council Tax (i.e. one in which people living in places such as Kensington Palace Gardens pay a darn sight more Council Tax than they pay at the moment) and a much higher top rate of tax. So I think that you could describe me as left of centre.

My mother was friendly with a woman whose brother-in-law had the unfortunate name of Dick Cockshutt.

To try to put things in perspective, does anyone have details of the percentage of independent shops in ED that pay the Living Wage? Until we know this, it seems unfair to single out Picture House for criticism.

What, you only allow them to have a pee and not number 2s. Is that really fair?

What about Brian? He and Matt are my favourites, tho' in real life I would hate their ruthless capitalist styles. Another thing that I can't stand. "Bored of" rather than "bored with". Also "I was like where were you? And she was like I was at Uni today." "I'm SO over her!"

Speaking myself as an Archers character who died in about 1973 and observing Ambridge from my place in heaven, I am horrified that the Archer family now "boasts" one of the most appalling spoil brat know-alls, namely Pipsqueak, not to mention her bloody mother who sounds like she is auditioning for the remake of "When The Boat Comes In"

And non-Americans who say "She's hurting" as (amazingly) 80 something typically English Jill said last week in "The Archers".

What has this got to do with the exciting prospect of a new cinema in LL? Why are certain people hunting for excuses to rubbish this proposal? Picture House aren't a workers co-operative and neither are Iceland. This has come as a major surprise to us all.

Possibly because Dartford isn't very nice and commuting costs into Central London would be much greater than from Hither Green. But of course if you can't afford to live in Hither Green, you might have to settle for Dartford.

One might think, reading most of the posts on this thread, that everything about independent shops was wonderful while everything about multiples was terrible. Well, it ain't quite so simple. For example, the Food Standards Agency rating for the East Dulwich Deli for July 2013 (most recent rating): 1 out of 5 - "Major improvement necessary".