FraddsMan

Way back when the East Dulwich Forum was in its infancy I was a prolific user as ‘MarmoraMan’. I moved away to Cornwall on retirement but am now trying to track down an IT consultant who helped set up my Google Mail system - his name was Chris, he specialised in Apple equipment and he lived on Crystal Palace Road. He, it appears, remains the administrator of my account which Google as chosen to suspend for no good reason. Any help you can give me would be most appreciated. Responses to: [email protected] Thank you.

Well I'm ?250.00 better off by backing my belief, in February, that the result would be a Cameron led majority. So personally I'm very happy. I also consider the nation is, and will be, better off under a Conservative government. My only niggle is that there must be a statesman like resolution of the UK Constitution (such as it is). Tempting as it would be to grant the SNP their demand for full fiscal autonomy - that would only lead to a bankrupt Scotland. More appropriate to my mind is to convene a constitutional forum, led by some 'political greybeards'(Jack Straw, William Hague, Menzies Campbell - or maybe reach further back) that can be both pragmatic and ignore party loyalties to debate and propose a new settlement. What price USGB - United States of Great Britain under a federal model?

An island all of my own

I despair of the current trend across the world to develop ever smaller groupings of 'them and us', using small differences to generate a sense of injustice and persecution. Scotland is a fantastic place but it, and every other nation of the United Kingdom, will be and will achieve more together than they ever will be do as disparate countries. The reductio ad absurdum of this world wide political fragmentation would be a return to city states, then tribes then individual selfish family units in an anarchic chaos. To an extent the SNP is acting rationally - it is engaging with the national politic to promote its views. However, there is a logical flaw at the heart of its current argument. The SNP doesn't want the rest of the UK to have any control over Scotland. Yet its current General Election stance is to promise control over England, Wales and Northern Ireland; it has stated very clearly its intention to vote at Westminster on matters that do not affect Scotland, such as the NHS and education, to extend a 'progressive' (aka socialist) agenda. A more logically consistent stance would be to win the seats but not take them up - as Sin Fein do. It would be a powerful political message, less antagonising to rUK and at a stroke demolish the 'fear' campaigns currently running by both Labour and the Conservatives.

But that convention applied when I placed the bet. My point is that bookies are shortening the odds on a Conservation majority - not to the point of a racing certainty but that's the direction of travel.

A point on costs of the Monarchy. Back in 18th century King George III (?) swapped entitlement a whole bunch of assets now known as the Crown Estates for guaranteed funding from Government, which became the Civil List. This carried on for a couple of centuries until 2011 when the Sovereign Grant was established - this pays a % (not sure how much but I understand less than 10%) of the income generated by the Crown Estates to fund the Monarchy. So rather than being funded out of 'our' taxes as so many tiresome republicans claim the Monarchy is self funding and , in addition, generates a tidy surplus for government funds. On the whole, given most countries require a ceremonial head of state, ours aren't too bad. They keep lots of people employed in writing gossip columns and speculation, attract tourists and are far cheaper than any presidential system could ever be. If you get the chance go see King Charles III - excellent, and strangely believable, satire.

Don't watch the polls, watch the betting shops. My ?50 bet on a Cameron led govt post election went on at 6/1. Now at 4/7. Odds on a Conservative majority (326 - 350 seats) now at 5/1, for Labour majority (326-350 seats) now 14/1. Mark you odds on another coalition are around 3/1.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're right, except one of the arguments levelled > against the boomers is that they somehow ran off > with the housing lolly when many are funding their > children and their parents. > > And no way was the rent on her house going to > cover three grand a month care home charges Oh well - it worked well enough for our family. Pension + rent + family support = just enough to cover care home fees in specialist dementia home. In the end it one of netted out - family contribution over time was rewarded by share of inheritance - a bit more than we paid in fees at least. Seemed fair all round.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's another perspective: Lewisham Council has > appropriated my inheritance to pay for care home > fees while I'm paying bundles towards a flat for > my nipper. Never quite understand the "appropriated my inheritance" argument. Two points: 1. Most of our parents generation started with nothing (very much) except the chance to be killed in WWII - so why should we benefit from them. 2. If you're really worried about inheritance - don't sell the property and use the capital to fund care home fees. Let it and use the rent to pay care home fees. That way you / your parent still has the asset.

TonyQuinn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I will not nail my political colours to any mast > on the forum but the worry I have of you as our > prospective MP is that you are another member of > the political class. I looked at your LinkedIn > page and it doesn't seem to suggest that you've > done anything beyond positioning yourself for a > life in politics. The one thing this country's > politics needs is people who have lived a life > beyond politics. What are your views on how a > political class has effectively taken over the > governing of us all? Where are the teachers, the > miners, the captains of industry, the nurses or > the layabouts....surely you agree that they > represent us more? Tony - your argument is circular. You condemn someone seeking to become a national politician for being a politician.