Jeremy

Were you on a 2 year tracker, which has expired and you're now on the standard variable rate? That's pretty standard, and it's a good way for banks to rip off customers who aren't financially savvy. Definitely time to shop around.

DJKQ, I understand your point about housing benefits, but I disagree completely. It is not effective use of public money to pay for people to live in expensive houses which are beyond the reach of the vast majority of us. It has nothing to do with class, or removing the poor from leafy/central areas... that's just paranoid nonsense. There are plenty of decent areas which are afforable within the new limits. Nobody needs to live in Hampstead or Pimlico. According to a Guardian article, there are 80 families claiming over ?1000 per week housing benefits from Westminster City Council. That is much, much more than most people even earn. How can this have ever been permitted?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then there's the cap on housing benefit of ?440 per month No, the cap is being set at between ?280 and ?400 a week. To be honest that seems perfectly adequate, you can get quite a nice house in London for ?400 a week.

Also, the OP shouldn't forget that workers in the private sector (including banks) have been made redundant too.

Public money has certainly not been pumped into the banks free of charge. The government has taken a lot of equity in the likes of RBS, and once the situation is stable, they will release the stock, probably at a profit. It does stick in the throat that many employees of a failed company are still getting paid very well, but at the end of the day they need to retain their staff, so what can they do? Sometimes you need to look at things from a logical - rather than an emotional - perspective.

Melbourne Grove (the bit nearest the station)

I'm no fan of bull-breed dogs by any means, and I understand where DC is coming from... but I don't think a selective ban is enforcable. Cross-breeding makes it very difficult to categorise which dogs are potentially dangerous. I think regulations would have to be brought in across all breeds.

Brendan is talking about a group of Tory voters he knows, and is extrapolating this to all Tory voters and to the party itself. He is right that the image of the average tory is not exactly glowing, but at this point in time I'd rather give the party the benefit of the doubt, and judge them on their actions rather than their reputation.

OK, so if the poor will lose on average 2.5%, and the rich will lose on average 1%... what is the breakdown of this? How much of that is VAT and how much of that is benefits? It seems only logical that of the rich person's 1% loss, most of this is VAT increase. But of the poorer person's 2.5%, the vast majority of this is down to loss in benefits. Yes it does seem as though those relying on benefits will be hardest hit, but it isn't because of the VAT rise.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Take the gloves off Jeremy and tell 'em how much you like The Clash. I was going to save that one in case Carnell had me backed into a corner. Now you've gone and ruined it.

Mick Mac, I don't think my views are elitist in the slightest! But I'm all for trying to apply some logic to the situation.

I believe the opposite of that is true, Brendan. I think that people with less money will spend a smaller percentage of their income on non-essential goods. Therefore paying proportionately less VAT. This seems to make me some sort of tory-nut-hugger lunatic.

My logic is based on the simple assumption that people with higher incomes will spend a greater proportion of their salary on non-essential goods. It's not offensive at all - certainly not as offensive as you twisting what I am saying and putting words in my mouth. Maybe I'm missing something. How does the VAT hike hit you harder than richer people? What are you buying that they aren't?

A new LCD TV is a luxury. Second hand CRT TVs can be picked up cheaply or free. I would expect new adult clothes to be only a small part of the monthly outgoings for the country's poorest. While there are bound to be a few counter-examples, VAT is generally applied to luxury goods. Inclusion in the RPI has nothing to do with whether an item is essential or not. > is there a threshold of income at which people are free to watch Sky Yes I would say there is... i.e. when a family can support themselves and have sufficient surplus income for luxuries.

I'm in favour of the VAT increase, rather than an income tax increase. It seems to be a fair tax rise, which should have a very small impact on the poorest. VAT is largely applied to luxury products, essentials tend to be exempt. I don't see why it will necessarily impact small business more than an equivalent income tax rise. I have no idea why you would want to "stand up to the banks and hit them where it hurts"... surely what we want to do is tax fairly while reducing risk... not some sort of childish revenge.

I heard that they're moving into the shop next to Waitrose.

I agree with skidmarks, there was hardly and info available, and what info we did have was not reliable. One train was displayed as "on time", only for people to squash onto it, and then be told that there was no driver available! Surely a couple of public announcements should have been possible, explaining the severity of the situation? And possibly even a member of staff on the concourse?

The trains have been unreliable over the last few weeks (in both directions), but I'm hoping it's just a blip. In general, the service is usually fairly good. Serious problems like yesterday are very rare.

Yeah sorry plimsoul... replying to you. To be fair to James, it's not in his ward or constituency. But it would be good if he could find a contact in the council who he could refer us to...

Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > those who are time rich but cash poor > could go during the day and those who are cash > rich but time poor could pay to go at times that > fitted with their working arrangements. Everyone's > a winner. How about people who are time poor and cash poor?

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two "normal" blokes and a yoof. > > Does this inform your analysis? I think when the yoof do it, it's an American rap/gang thing, implying they are "packing heat". For grown men in suits, it will be a Masonic thingy.

Yes, you absolutely need to offer it to the tennents first! You should probably hire someone to do the valuation for you if you're not sure how it works. It's not a massively complex process, but slightly more involved than womanofdulwich suggests. You need to incorporate a yield rate - which I believe will typically be calculated from other freehold sales in the local area.

I found an email address for Peter John (cllr for South Camberwell and Labour Southwark Council leader) and dropped him a line last week, not heard back from him though.

So TIGER RANKS who gives a shit what I drive? It was a light-hearted ribbing in response to Ratty's observation that the car was "nifty". If you think it's so fucking great, why don't you go and buy it.

Were they "yoof" losers / wannabe gangster types? Or just normal blokes?