peckhamboy

We had that one as well. She's standing as an Independent.

It would depend on the terms of the lease - your solicitor will advise you though. I'd be surprised if the lease didn't contain a covenant to repair or to contribute 50% of the cost. It might be your obligation to carry out the work though.

Just saw this on the Guardian website - video Admittedly it's election related but quite interesting in that it focusses on the smaller candidates, including the Greens, rather than the main parties. (I have no connection with any of them by the way and have no particular axe to grind, just found the video interesting).

Agreed. The initial punch when he was spat on is almost understandable (if not condonable) and arguably no worse than John Prescott, but to follow it up by kicking the lad on the ground is inexcusable. He also seemed to be goading them from the start (although we don't know what was said before the cameras were on) and was clearly looking for a fight. Does anyone really want people like that running the country?

I'm just frustrated with the whole election - everything is about what's not said more than what is said, and every party is refusing to be completely straight with voters. It's an extension of the "government knows best" approach of Blair - the electorate is too stupid to make its own mind up when presented with the truth. If any party was prepared to stand up and be totally honest, it would get my vote. As it happens, I don't have a problem with amnesties as such - but I wish the Lib dems would just say that that's what they're proposing. So James - why not just say that there are a large (but unknown) number of illegal immigrants in the country who have been here for a long time and who, subject to their meeting certain (rather vague) conditions, you propose offering UK citizenship to? And therefore, an amnesty in relation to the illegality of their entry into the country. Give us the facts, not the spin. Please.

"Also that earn citizenship is not an amnesty. That to earn citizenship will require good english skills, no law breaking, completing community service. This one time earned citizenship programme aiming to sort out the last 30 years mess so that those that don't meet this tough criteria can have their cases resolved once and for all rather than live in their current twilight zone of not paying taxes, national insurance etc." Ummm, yes it is. It may be a conditional amnesty but it's still an amnesty. And I can't see how you expect it to work - it's hardly a compelling argument is it? "You've been here illegally for 10 years, we don't know who you are or where you are. In fact, we don't even know that you exist. You're very happily doing whatever you do and not paying taxes, but why don't you come forward and become a citizen of this country? What's that? What's in it for you? Well, the opportunity to pay taxes and national insurance." With an offer like that, I can see literally tens of people taking you up.

Assuming Balls doesn't lose his seat of course...

I thought you were better than that, Brendan. I'm not sure where Magpie's vested interest lies, either, unless you know something about him/her that wasn't mentioned in their post. Or is working in the private sector now a "vested interest" that puts us all in the same evil camp as the banks? Why should anyone in the public sector as a matter of principle be immune to economic conditions?

*Bob* - I don't work in the banking sector. Whatever happens to bankers' bonuses will not affect me personally. I'm just trying to inject some balance and proportionality into what has become a huge issue simply because the three main political parties are trying to outdo each other in the hope of gaining an electoral advantage. Do I think there are people working in the financial sector paid far more than they deserve? Yes. Do I think everyone associated with a bank (whether it struggled or not) should be clobbered with punitive measures? No. Has anyone broken the law? If so, punish them according to the law. But don't make up the law after the event in order to punish a group of people for something that may not even have been their fault.

Clamping down on bonuses will just result in banks paying higher salaries in order to keep star performers, meaning that very little of their remuneration is linked to performance, whether long term or short term. Why can't everyone realise that there is no "perfect" solution, partly because nobody has actually pinpointed the problem? For all the talk of separating retail banks and casino banks, the worst hit "casino" banks (eg Lehmans) have no retail arm. The worst hit retail banks (Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley) have no "casino" arm. LTSB ended up in the mire only because Gordon effectively encouraged, even forced, them to buy HBOS (waiving competition regulations in the process). Barclays was not bailed out, and that was partly due to the very strong performance of Barclays Capital cross-subsidising the retail bank. The banks collapsed because they were encouraged to lend through the boom years, thanks to Gordon feeding the housing bubble by taking house price inflation out of the inflation measure used by the BoE to set interest rates. So banks (naively) lent ever-increasing sums on the basis of ever-increasing house prices, to people who had insufficient capital to cope if things went wrong. Additionally, Northern Rock held virtually no regulatory capital and relied on short-term market funding rather than customer deposits to finance its lending. Which was fine until the markets stopped lending. As far as I can see, the problems were not caused by bankers' bonuses, nor were they caused by retail and investment banks existing side by side. And they won't be cured by saying that bankers can't be paid bonuses or retail and investment banks can't exist together. And I defy anyone to come up with a definition of the "bankers" who ought to be punished. Board executives? IT staff? Legal staff? Compliance teams? Branch managers? Anyone who works in/for a bank? Frankly, it looks like a witch hunt. It also distracts from more important matters - like where cuts will be made after the election, which taxes will be going up and for whom, and how will England do in the World Cup.

The reason for Barclays requiring additional investment was primarily because of changes to capital adequacy rules imposed at very short notice as part of the response to the meltdown, meaning (in very abridged form) that all banks had just a few months to make sure that they were holding liquid assets representing a higher proportion of total deposits. So the Qatari investment was to make sure that they met the new regulatory capital threshold rather than to ensure that they didn't go bust. That's not a bailout but a prudent response to a changed regulatory landscape. Of course, that doesn't make the same sort of headlines.

Seriously? After Brown's performance over the last 13 years I can't understand how anybody genuinely thinks he's the best option. I agree that there is no stand-out vote-winner, but nobody who as Chancellor and then unelected PM presided over the sale of our gold reserves, the expansion of the public sector to 50% of GDP, an increase in marginal income tax rate to 62% for people on a salary that, for London, is not huge, tax policies that penalise low and middle income earners, benefits policies that act as a disincentive to work, interest rate policies that encouraged the housing and lending bubble, a huge number of new and increased taxes and a doubling of national debt (all the time, stating that "prudence" was his middle name) can possibly be the best option. That said, I hope he somehow clings onto power. Because the next government is going to face constant strike threats from the unions, will have to cut public services more severely than ever before, will have to raise taxes (as Brown himself admitted last night) and will probably make itself unelectable for 20 years. Edited to say: Keef, you said that "Cameron seemed to have given up on the middle ground, and was going all out Tory. You could almost feel the contempt he has for the lower classes." Brown strikes me as someone who has contempt for everybody (with the possible exception of people like Ed Balls who share his rabidly socialist tendencies).

Given the way the Q&A was phrased, I assumed she meant progressive up to 100%...

Tessa - thanks for taking the time to respond. On the subject of remuneration, your response implies that you agree with the premise that an individual's earnings should be capped. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest the upper limit should be set? Additionally, how would this sort of policy encourage hard work and productivity (which in turn leads to higher tax income which is required to fund the massive public sector and budget deficit in this country)? Is there not a risk that it would in fact discourage aspiration and entrepeneurial behaviour, leading to stagnant or decreased tax income and an ever-increasing budget?

Is that her lunch she's walking?

Marmora Man - if you stood for election, you'd have my vote...

Personally, I felt that Brown came across as rather clumsy and blinkered by ideology and hatred of DC. DC came across as nervous and slightly lightweight and failed to land any real punches. Clegg was the most polished but that was partly because the other two left him to get on with it. My big problem with Brown (apart from the jaw thing that makes me feel physically sick) is his insistence that scrapping NI is "taking money out of the economy" - in his strange view of the world, he seems to think that the public sector and the economy are the same thing. I imagine his perfect world would be one where everybody is employed by the state and money just keeps going round. Plus he seems to think that anyone earning more than ?20k is fair game for extra taxes. Earning that in London you'd barely be able to pay your rent after he's taken his cut. Incidentally, i thought Hague on Jonathan Dimbleby was by far the best performer on the night from any party.

Me neither

Yes, Manor Place up the Walworth Road, or check the Lambeth council website. They have one (for recycling only) in W Dulwich, nr Rosendale Rd.

Fortunately, we've been very gradually > building up the financial reserves of the council > to cope with dire emergencies such as this. You mean overcharging council tax?

TJMP Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi everybody, > > Just been shopping on Lordship Lane - where were > you? ;-) > Hmmm, let me see. 12.37 on a Thursday. Where was I? Oh yes, in the office, doing an honest day's work (not a phrase I'd expect an MP to understand), all for the privilege of giving half of my salary to the government to flush down the toilet. Still, nice to know that our local MP was out and about enjoying the sunshine and getting the shopping in. Hopefully after May 6th she'll have a bit more time for things like that...

JL - I read the almost as referring to the "turned around", not to the grabbing (which it appears did happen). Noosh82, hope you're ok. Sounds like you gave the police a pretty good description so hopefully they'll catch the tw@t soon.

Randomly found this article about ED - the only surprising thing about it is that it was written in 2001, rather than last week. ED article

Martin, you're in danger of side-tracking your own thread now. Even a one-eyed monkey can tell the difference between a reasoned, cogent argument and an incoherent rant. It's not necessary to know the underlying facts to assess the persuasive merits of a written argument. I am not doubting that you feel strongly about the issue, nor am I attempting to debate whether you're right or wrong. I'm merely pointing out that by posting in the manner above in response to receiving a leaflet on a wholly unrelated matter you risk not being taken seriously, by coming across as...well...a teensy bit mad.

I'm not debating whether the OP has a point or not - I don't know enough of the background promises or the current plans. To be honest I would love to see something useful done with that site. But launching a slightly incoherent rant on here, employing specious arguments on cost, and addressed to people who may not even look at the site, seems rather pointless. And I suspect that, if it had been written as a letter, it might have been written in green ink and capitals.