LondonMix

Exactly. StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "what does that say about Ed?" > > it says (for the umpteenth fliipin' time!) that ED > has commercial property of a very small unit size

I always really liked David and was so disappointed when Ed wom the labour contest. David was probably the only politician in recent years that I actually thought came across as both a statesman and someone who really understood the issues facing the nation.

I often disagree with various policies for ideological reasons but this is simply bad policy. It has been condemned by everyone. The financial community, the Office for Budget Responsibility, director-general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders expressed concerns when questioned by the Treasury select committee regarding the proposals, even the US Treasury Secretary has commented. It's just a really, really bad policy idea. Apparently the Bank of England has the power to kill it, and I'd be surprised if they would let it stand in its current form.

I think support for families (whatever form it takes) should be means-tested. Household income would be a fairer test but would require the fundamentals of the UK tax system (i.e. the principal of individual only tax affairs) to be changed. Is that really worth doing for a inequity that in truth will only affect a small number of families on a relatively small benefit? Personally, I think the upper income limit for this new child care voucher scheme is ridiculously high and should be lowered?and I say this as someone who under all circumstances won?t qualify for any of it. It?s a poor use of government funds in my view and disproportionately helps the well-off who would of course like it but certainly don?t need it. Childcare costs are never going to prevent someone earning 150k from returning to work so what?s the point of giving them vouchers?

Within a one mile radius of most parts of ED, transport links to Victoria, London Bridge, the ELL to South West London and to Canary Wharf! Also, close proximity to two museums (Picture Gallery and Horniman). Dulwich Woods

Yes, some child care options are terrible. However, to me that's an argument for the provision of better quality child care rather than an argument in support for a parent staying home.

I?m not so sure its common sense. I think someone who devotes their life to the care of children (and so has a natural disposition toward nurturing children) can be just as nurturing as a mother who loves her own children. If you then compare this type of child care provider to an uncaring mother (who might be unhappy / depressed because she feels trapped / anxious in the home or economically vulnerable because she is dependent on someone else or the state), the picture becomes even less clear. Also, that newspaper article you link to doesn?t make reference to any studies that suggest institutional childcare harms children. It points out a number of issues facing children in Sweden but explicitly states that causation had been difficult to prove regarding daycare. You have an ideological view which is fine, but don?t exaggerate the case for it.

Magpie, I agree its a question of what do you think is the greater good weighing the economic and social benefits of each policy option. The government has made its call and people either agree or disagree with it. I wonder how many people actually share your view-- all things being equal believe society would be better off if a parent stayed at home for the first 2-3 years of a child's life. I'm not sure I agree with you but I might be in the minority.

Where's that? Monkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A new Gail's bakery in Dulwich.

Agree with Penguin who made my point much better than me! The government is trying to encourage parents to work. This is a benefit (economically) from a tax collection perspective. You can argue about whether it's a good policy for society as a whole (should two parents be working?) but its what the policy aims to do and I don't disagree with it.

Agree, for a barrister, she's not very articulate. What she really should be saying is that a different proposal not for 3rd party child care costs but for the costs of raising a child in general should have been adopted so that all families would benefit. Not sure I agree with that, but at least it would have made sense!

ditto ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh, don't worry *bob*, i am in the losing out > category likewise and certainly won't be moaning, >

The new benefit applies to single parents (just not married couples with a stay at home parent) from what I understood. The test is still 150k per person though so again if couple makes 300k they get it but a single parent on 160k wouldn't. Anyhow, the sums are now so rediculously high I can't see much cause for complaint.

Yes, what's happened in Cyprus has definitely emboldened people to express pretty damaging ideas. Regarding the BofE proposal I?d be surprised if small depositor?s coverage would end. If you can imagine under a Lehman, ?we?ll just let it fail and wind it up? scenario the following would occur. The bank fails but ?small? depositors are protected. As the bank is being wound up, you as a protected depositor would be paid a sum by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (which is funded by a levy on private financial firms that builds up reserves over time). You would then take this money and deposit it in another bank and it would automatically be insured again. Therefore, I?d be surprised if the government were proposing to allow the FSCS off the hook regarding insurance on the deposits of the recapitalized institution. I think they are simply saying, just because we step in, you aren?t off the hook. Contribute to the bailout up to at least the amount you would have to if we hadn?t stepped in and then we?ll have a new solvent bank to work from as normal. I can?t open the entire document so I might be wrong but I can?t see that post recap, small depositors would somehow become uninsured.

That's true. And I am a newcomer and wouldn't say I'm like that either. I just meant only those who have moved in are that affluent, not that they share those views. I think the views themselves are in an even smaller minority than the economic status! :)

Sorry but you haven't got that right. I am fluent in Spanish. The article in Spain says El ministro de Hacienda y Administraciones P?blicas, Crist?bal Montoro, ha avanzado hoy martes que el Gobierno va a imponer un tipo "moderado" a los dep?sitos bancarios para compensar a las comunidades que vieron anulado su impuesto auton?mico despu?s de que el Ejecutivo creara un impuesto estatal a tipo 0%. Este impuesto sobre los dep?sitos bancarios, que no tiene nada que ver con el de Chipre, no afecta a los ahorradores sino que obliga a las entidades de cr?dito a pagar por los dep?sitos que capten. Pay attention to the last line which translates as-- this tax will not affect savers but rather will oblige the financial entities to pay taxes on the deposits they hold. There use to be a levy in place at the regional level that was automatically annuled by a recent law put in place. This is restoring the status quo. Regarding the analysis from the Bank of England it's hard to say without context but what they appear to be suggesting in you extract is as follows. If a bank went bankrupt (i.e. wasn't bailed out), the depositors insurance scheme would have to pay out for deposits below 100k. When the state steps in and saves a bank, so far, the insurance scheme didn't have to kick in and wasn't used. What they are proposing is that when a bank is saved from failure through recapitalisation from the state etc, that the insurance scheme contribute to the bailout up to the amount it would have to have paid out if the bank had in fact failed (putting it in plain English). The chief economist of Commerzbank can say what he wants. Commerz was a private bank like RBS that failed and had to be bailed out by the German state. They are just quoting someone without any particular influence within the EU decision making mechanism to further scaremonger depositors. Commerz isn't part of the government and the economist there is just a private individual stating his own view and has now influence of public policy. I'm not saying there is nothing to be concerned about but you should be clear about what is and what isn't being done and how important people being quoted are. Top Banana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The EU seems to tear up the rule book every day. > The capital controls in Cyprus go against its own > treaties. > > "Free movement of capital is at the heart of the > Single Market and is one of its 'four freedoms'. > It enables integrated, open, competitive and > efficient European financial markets and services > - which bring many advantages to us all." > > http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/capital/index_ > en.htm > > Now the precedence has been set, other countries > are going to steal from savers. New Zealand is > hoping to implement its OBR - Open Bank Resolution > Policy. > > "The implementation of OBR would see all unsecured > liabilities that rank equally among themselves, > including deposits, having a portion frozen. If a > bank fails under OBR, all depositors will have > their savings reduced overnight to help fund the > bank?s bail out." > > Spain, it would appear, has changed constitutional > rules to enable a so-called ?moderate? levy on > deposits. > > http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2013/03/19/act > ualidad/1363720713_602578.html > > Joerg Kraemer, chief economist of the German > Commerzbank, has called for private savings > accounts in Italy to be levied at 15%. ?A tax > rate of 15 percent on financial assets would > probably be enough to push the Italian government > debt to below the critical level of 100 percent of > gross domestic product,? he told Handelsblatt. > > What constitutes "financial assets"? The value of > your house? > > In December 2012 the Federal Deposit Insurance > Corporation and the Bank of England published a > joint paper outlining their new approach for how > to resolve any future collapse of one of the > Too-Big-To-Fail banks, called ?Resolving Globally > Active, Systemically Important, Financial > Institutions?. The paper is the blue print for how > collapses, at what it calls G-SIFIs (Globally > Systemically Important Financial Institutions) > will be dealt with in future. > > Section 34 states -: > > 34 The U.K. has also given consideration to the > recapitalization process in a scenario in which a > G-SIFI?s liabilities do not include much debt > issuance at the holding company or parent bank > level but instead comprise insured retail deposits > held in the operating subsidiaries. Under such a > scenario, deposit guarantee schemes may be > required to contribute to the recapitalization of > the firm, as they may do under the Banking Act in > the use of other resolution tools. The proposed > RRD also permits such an approach because it > allows deposit guarantee scheme funds to be used > to support the use of resolution tools, including > bail-in, provided that the amount contributed does > not exceed what the deposit guarantee scheme would > have as a claimant in liquidation if it had made a > payout to the insured depositors. > > http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Docume > nts/news/2012/nr156.pdf > > What it says is that the money that the Deposit > scheme contains would now be used to bail out to > the bank in order to prop it up. In other words > the new system makes the Deposit Guarantee fund > available for use as bail out money, and in > effect, useless as protection for you and me. > > Now, if I was a "reckless investor" I might expect > to lose money sometimes. But, I'm not - I bank > with NatWest. However, if RBS Investment Bank > decides to mess up again, then according to some > commentators here I should pay for their mistakes. > I haven't done my due dilligence in checking the > health of the Bank. > > However, given overnight money markets, LIBOR, > dollar swaps, derivatives, shadow banking, bond > markets, EURIBOR, PMI's and whatever else, just > how the hell am I supposed to do that?

Yes, there is plenty of hypocrisy though I think it would be unfair to claim the UK have tried to build their economy specifically as a money laundering / tax dodging haven. Either way, a lot of the criticism of Cyprus has been unfair. Germany saying that finance was too large a portion of the economy was nonsense. Luxembourg (another tax haven in which finance makes up a huge portion of the ecnomy) rightly points out that no one ever suggests that automobiles or weapons manufacturing are too large a portion Germany?s economy. Countries specialize in doing different things. New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is one mafia style group IMF ?wacking? > another mafia style group Russian ?oligarchs? via > proxies. > > Please remember Europe ?some dishes are best > served cold? > > Regarding clients of tax dodging offshore banking > havens, lets not forget LIBOR and drug money > laundering UK and U.S. banks, maybe a little less > pot & kettle talk.

The article in the Independent isn't remotely a balanced picture of who lives here-- just the set who has recently moved in. Bluerevolution is right in one thing though. The policy is clearly trying to make it easier for people to have children to work. It?s an implicit goal of the policy. You could equally adopt a policy that made it easier to be a stay at home mother but the government isn?t trying to specifically encourage that. There are clearly parents on both sides ? some who would prefer to stay at home but can?t afford it and equally some who are at home and would rather work but can?t afford childcare. The government has made helping those who want to work the priority. Overall, increasing women?s participation on the workforce is an economic benefit to the country as a whole, increases tax revenues etc so take ideological concerns out of it, you can see why they?ve made their choice.

The only reason to give people tax breaks / benefits for having children is because you want to encourage people to have children that otherwise wouldn?t or because you want to make it easier for parents to participate in the workforce. If you notice, the countries that have adopted the most generous subsidized child care were often trying to counteract very low birth rates (Germany / France) or were very concerned about female participation in the workforce and in general are progressive on women?s issues. It?s debatable if British women need to be incentivized to have children in the same way German women do as the birth rate in the UK is still pretty high. Female participation in the workforce (if you think this is a worth aim) would definitely benefit. Government money isn?t free. Priorities need to be set and means testing is essential. Bluerevolution, providing benefits to poor families isn?t a reward to the supposedly ?feckless? parents but to ensure that the children don?t fall below a minimum standard of living and get a decent start in life.

James do you know what's happening to the ED Police station on Lordship Lane? I understand it will be closed but has it been sold off?

Does anyone have an actual update on what's happening with the site? Has it been sold off and if so to who and with permission to do what?

They will have to maintain capital controls for a while I imagine. The 2nd largest bank is being broken up. The remaining institutions will have access to the liquidity facility (to deal with lack of funds) and be recapitalised to deal with underlying solvency issues. However, given that the financial system there was basically a tax-haven / money laundering center for wealthy foreigners, its fair to assume the size of the banking sector will be dramatically reduced in future as foreigners will all flee once the controls are removed. Many banks are going to have to be merged etc.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem had to retract that statement very quickly. I wouldn't say he speaks for the EU but he's managed to do a lot of damage in short period of time!

* Cheap carpet starts at 15 psm and engineered wood floor can be 35 psm. Carpet installation is just a few hundred pounds but installing engineered wood flooring will be at least 1,500 for the space you need doing. Depending on if you need bathroom and kitchen floors doing, all in including underlays etc, 4-5k. * Shower room including parts and installation will depend on the specifics but 1.5k wouldn't be unreasonable for adding in a shower to an existing W/C if no structural changes were needed. * If you are willing to paint yourself, just a few hundred for materials. Hiring a professional painter to paint an entire house that size (including woodwork) would be 2-3k at least depending on if you needed ceilings done as well etc. * Internal doors are cheap. ?100 per door plus installation costs. Reclaimed doors are even less. If you need an external door that can get expensive depending on how nice you want your door furniture to be. You can easily spend 1k on a new front door including installation but it could also be a lot more. *Windows will be the most expensive thing. If you want double glazed timber sash windows, it will be very expensive, particularly for the bay windows. That alone could cost 15-20k for a large house if all windows need to be replaced and you have bay windows. PVC windows are much cheaper but still thousands. See if you can repair them rather than replace them which is much more cost effective (we paid 250 per window to repair our sashes) and had them draught proofed and installed shutters to improve heat retention. Unless the windows are terrible, if you love the house, you can replace these slowly over time. Good luck!

Read my previous post.... The goal is to break the link when they believe the fundamental issues have already been addressed. They want the appropriate reforms in place first of course.