Magpie

Was being a bit sarcy . . . .

Forget Neighbourhood watch schemes we should have a "dog poo watch scheme" where groups of local volunteers patrol the streets looking for anti-social animals and their dogs. Should an offence occur, the only remedy is to rub the perps nose in the evidence. It stops puppies doing their business inside.

I agree with Quids, the global crisis came about as a result of mercantilist policies by the Chinese, and by poor policy responses by US and European central banks. They kept interest rates to stay low for too long, leading to a debt boom. This can't be laid at Labours door. However, the fact that the UK has been one of the worst affected is their fault - the record tax receipts off the back of continuous growth in the last decade (the majority from the much maligned financial sector) have been spent and then some, to the extent that the UK did not have the resources for a fiscal stimulus. To an extent Labour's constant tinkering with taxes and benefits, its intervention in pension funds, sale of Gold etc are all minor symptoms of the bigger issue - mismanagement of the nation?s finances. On that basis a rational person should not vote for them. Do you give a drunk the key to the drinks cabinet?

Back on topic - below are the responses to a question asked as part of a Yougov survey. It suggests that for voters Europe is very much a secondary issue, and that Cameron needs to avoid being dragged into an internal row over Europe Which two or three issues will be most important to you in deciding who you vote for in the coming election? 1. The economy - 56 per cent 2. Immigration & Asylum - 43 per cent 3. Health - 34 per cent 4. Crime - 30 per cent 5. Tax - 27 per cent 6. Pensions - 26 per cent 7. Education - 19 per cent 8. Family life & childcare - 18 per cent 9. The environment - 15 per cent 10. Europe - 10 per cent 11. Iraq / Afghanistan - 10 per cent 12. Transport - 5 per cent

No, the Forresters was

Can East Dulwich technically be a town/village when it is already inside a City?

Mockney - you are effectively agreeing with me and quids - firms, governments, aid agencies etc work within the system. The system is set by those in power. If you have a corrupt/flawed system then ultimately the people suffer.

Lets be honest here, the majority of changes to the roads eg traffic lights, speed bumps, road narrowing are there to make it better for pedestrians, and almost by definition worse for drivers. That seems to be the policy to roads in London. Are there any actual studies that support the assertion that a 20mph zone actually increases traffic speed, with such studies normalised for area, time of day, traffic conditions at the time etc? 20mph seems sensible along residential streets, I would not classify Lordship Lane nor Barry Road in that category.

You clearly don't understand the point - it is not the fault of the occupants of poor countries that they have bad governance (and in any case rarely is there a true electorate), it is the fault of their government. Bad governance is maintained for a number of reasons, but primarily through the self interest of those in power. Multinationals operate within the legal framework of the countries they operate in. They may try to influence, but they cannot dictate. In any case multinationals pay better, and treat their workforce better, than domestic companies. Further, you single out rich corporations, well international governments and aid agencies have just as much interest in maintaining politcal status quos.

Ok to summarise, some of us believe that Britain's claim to the Falklands is the strongest either because it has the stronger claim, is currently in possession and the islanders want to remain British, or solely because the islanders want to remain British, but Britain is very naughty and (according to Brendan) Britain holding the Falkland islands is similar to Norway invading the Shetlands. Apart from Narnia, Simon M and Huguenot who seem to think that all property is Theft, and no one really owns anything, they just look after it for a bit. Mockney then thinks that Britain should abandon the FLs, because the country screwed over the Chagos Islanders a few years ago. All this is irelevent as the Argies don't have the capability to take the island militarily, although we probably don't have the capability to retake it should they take it but might be able to defend it from being taken, and we are unlikely to give it up through diplomatic channels as there is lots of oil there, and thats all we care about. Cover everything?

Clearly outside factors are important, and some countries are just luckier than others in terms of geography, climate, proximity to other countries etc but the fact remains that well governed countries do better than poorly governed ones, and that well governed poor countries do get rich. Ignoring any moral considerations it makes commercial sense for rich countries to help poor countries to get rich, most trade is between countries on similar levels of income. In my view the way to do this is through encouragement of good governance and through free trade - the alternatives such as aid, or preferential trade agreements tend not to work as they maintain the establishment and status quo in poorer countries. You could argue that the involvement of the US in SK was just as likely to result in disaster, as it did in Vietnam or indeed, in much of South America.

in 1962 Ghana and South Korea has similar populations and the same level of GDP per capita. Yet one managed to get rich, while the other is still poor - the difference? Well i think you can guess - institutions, rule of law, enforcement of property rights etc namely the foundations required for stable economic growth.

The EU does a great job of keeping poor countries poor, by constructing barriers against imports from developing countries and by subsidising domestic production, particularly in agriculture. Poor countries are not poor because rich countries are rich, but because they are badly governed.

I think we may have to agree to disagree, political integration is not essential for a common market. Member companies need to sign up to a minimal common set of rules, but thats about it. There is no need for parliaments, commissions etc

We are going round in circles here - the benefits come from free trade - not from political interference from the EU. The CAP is the single biggest driver of EU spend, it directly leads to higher food prices, and acts to exclude food imports from the developing world, it is there to protect a vocal minority in France. It represents all that is wrong about the EU, and hence why people are right to be sceptical about the worth of its activities.

Yet we are one of only three net contributors to the EU budget. In the absence of the opt outs how much more would the country get screwed over? Can you not see any legitimate complaint from UK taxpayers subsidising French farmers or Spanish fisherman? The EU is a anti-democratic and corrupt organisation, it is only natural that people have doubts across the EU, not just in the UK. There are tangible benefits from a common market, but only theoretical benefits from political union, and the evidence on the success of the EU as a governmental body, is in my view, pretty unimpressive. The rational approach to the EU is a sceptical approach.

Never heard of it, perhaps you could provide a link to the document itself rather than to a rather confusing page on your website.

Yeah but who makes the comprimises and who is to judge what is in the interests of the "whole". When do the French ever comprimise or indeed apply EU law that they don't like - such as rules limiting state aid. Its clear that most other EU member states apply the laws they like and ignore those they don't, and the UK should be no different.

Clearly thats the ideal - but I don't think it works in practice. The Germans are refusing to bail out the Greeks, when clearly it would be for the greater good of the union were they to do so. My view is that a pragmatic approach should be taken, and we should only adopt laws etc where it is of a direct benefit or that we agree with. This is the approach the French, Germans, Italians etc take.

I really think 9/11 has absolutely zip to do with it all. Seriously? It may not have made the hardcore reject violence, but it certainly saw a big shift in the US re financial and political support to the IRA, and Gerry Adams realised that the game was up re violence. Anyway completely off topic - the common market has some real economic benefits for its member states. In theory being part of a larger European body in a world of China/India/US/Russia makes some sense. However, lets be clear that no single member of the EU is happy to sacrifice its national interests for the common good - see the current fiasco in Greece. Therefore, a realistic view should be taken to the EU - ie we should accept what suits, and ignore/reject what doesn't, as every other country in the EU does! Further, one can see why some countries are more in favour of the EU than others - only Britain, Germany and the Netherlands are net contributors to the EU budget - everyone else takes the subsidies and says thanks very much.

Well actually they did tell people - according to the essay posted by Brendan the first "recorded" sighting was 1594 by a British sailor which predates the Dutch who got there in 1600. The link posted by Brendan also states that some Argentinian servicemen claim that the Spanish got there first in 1520.

The only real answer is to shame offenders - ie kindly invite people to clean up after their pets. However, as with everything else regarding anti-social behaviour, the (probably small) risk of getting stabbed is a deterrent.

Well it depends who you believe - the official Island website claims that the rock was "discovered" by a British sailor prior to the Spanish, but then they would say that wouldn't they

Mockney - Your comments that Britain had stolen something from the Argies kind of implies a default position, as does your interpretation of the situation in respect of HK. I could argue that your position in always criticising Britains role, on the basis of two posts, dangerously smacks of those on the left who have a bizarre alliance with islamic fanatics - eg Respect and SWP just because they both oppose America. Brendan - where did I say the British case was strongest because it was British? The island was first discovered by the Brits, was first settled by the Brits, has been held since 1833 by the Brits, and the inhabitants want to remain British.

I will bow to your greater knowledge, now I just need to find the bugger who changed it from the original UT name and moan at them