silverfox

That's a very good point Brendan - the relative value of salary/income. In my home town in the West Midlands I know of solicitors and accountants whose earnings would be laughed at in London yet they live very comfortable lives thank you very much in houses with big gardens the value of which wouldn't buy you a three bedroom flat in East Dulwich. Ironically, that may be an argument for lowering and raising the level of income at which to exclude earners from receiving Child Allowance eg, combined income of, say, ?35,000 in Scunthorpe = no child allowance. Combined income of ?150,000 in Chelsea = no allowance. Quite messy though and nobody has to live in Chelsea.

I agree that setting up a system to establish that combined household income exceeding ?44,000 will be bureacratic and expensive especially where the couple is not married or even living separately. Off the top of my head, keep giving it to children as now but reclaim it through the tax system retrospectively as unearned income. High earners have the ?1,000 odd pound deducted from the sole salary or divided between the joint salaries. Those families whose joint income comes in under ?44,000 in a particular tax year can then claim it as an allowance upon proof of cross-checking their individual tax returns. This also has the advantage of not penalising those without children. It would only require a tweak to the pre-existing tax system.

Looks like: WARNING SQUASHED BIKES

Huguenot said: "I know. I am still struggling to understand what is unfair about not paying these benefits to higher earners." There is probably nothing unfair about taking away the Child Benefit allowance from higher earners. What is unfair is the way it is being proposed. It's illogical and ill-thought out. A person/household earning ?44,000 gets no allowance, two people next door both earning ?43,999.99p get it. The unfairness is the way it hasn't been thought through, despite the arrogance of the Children and Families minister saying "It's fair, end of. End of." It's also becoming obvious that hardly anyone in cabinet yet alone government knew about the plans or that it was going to be announced at conference. Teresa May was asked 11 times by Jeremy Paxton on Tuesday when she first heard about it and refused to answer the question, although she did deny the first she heard of it was on BBC News that morning. Baroness Warsi was asked the same question by Andrew Neil at least four times yesterday and again refused to answer the question. Why does this matter if the policy is reasonable and fair? Despite it being a PR disaster that hijacked the Tory conference it does not inspire confidence or bode well for the rest of the cuts to be announced if they are all as badly thought out as this. (I still think this won't see the light of day in its present form). When all's said and done this is just an pay cut for middle class parents, although the income is unearned. What is more worrying is some of the proposed benefits cuts for welfare claimants. You can't cut housing benefit etc unless you offer the claimants real jobs for them to do. Many working people would struggle without help with housing costs. With figures of 80,000 people becoming homeless if such cuts were implemented being quoted the Coalition cannot afford any more ill-thought out, half-cocked policy releases. We cannot leave people out to hang and dry. If we're not careful we'll see riots that make the Poll Tax riots look like a playground squabble.

I watched this last week. Russell Brand is someone who I've never taken any notice of. However I must say he struck me as a highly intelligent and very likeable person.

Interesting bit of news in The Times this evening: Child benefit cut could hit millions more when tax band falls Hundreds of thousands more families than expected could be hit by the decision to withdraw child benefit, it emerged yesterday. Almost two million workers who are currently basic-rate taxpayers, including tens of thousands of teachers and policemen, are expected to become higher-rate taxpayers over the next five years because the starting level for the top-rate band is set to fall from next year. This means that hundreds of thousands of families could find that by 2013 they, too, will lose the weekly payment... ...Anyone currently earning between ?36,500 and ?42,000 is likely to become a higher-rate taxpayer before the end of this parliament if their wages increase in line with expectations...

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it is fair, if you are a high earner then > you don?t need benefits as much as the less off > benefits should go to people that really need it > that also means work shy people in society should > also be targeted as well. > > The welfare state systems need a reviewing from > the top to the bottom. Couldn't this argument also apply to pensions Ridgley? Eg, if you retire and live in a house worth more than, say, ?750,000 should you get a state pension? You can sell the house, downsize, pay off the mortgage if you still have one and live off the proceeds freeing up money for pensions for the more deserving. The problem with arguments about cuts and fairness is where do you stop?

I understand Mumsnet is up in arms over this change with many stay at home mums while the children are young now saying that with childcare costs there's no point in them going back to work. This hasn't been thought through and I can't see this actually happening in its present form. It doesn't bode well for the rest of the cuts to be announced.

It was implied by your story

Coming back to Sean's story. What if, come the winter, the other fellow dismantles the hut to use as firewood under the pot and eats the industrious islander? In a state of nature example such as this, is this unfair?

Part of the problem with the raft of cuts to come is that they have to be fair. This one isn't fair. While it is fair to say anyone earning over ?44,000 probably doesn't need this universal benefit it is unfair if the 40% tax earner is the single bread winner while two basic rate tax payers who have a combined income of at least ?44,000 still qualify for the benefit, especially as the lower rate earners will actually have more combined net income than the 40% tax payer. Edited for spelling

Clicked on to this thread because I thought there was a real fire in an arcade in Brixton. Now understand it's something to do with a pop group. Have made a note with my pencil in my diary: "Arcade Fire" pop group. Mention to teenage kids! Now worried that when I drop name 'Arcade Fire' into conversation kids will give me that Jeremy Clarkson, still wears jeans at his age look. Please advise.

ljs, I'd advise renting it through an agent. The agent would assume the burden of the landlord's obligations, certificates for boilers etc, deal with contractual matters. They will charge you of course, but if you're in Derbyshire it will take a weight off your mind.

Oh well Moos, nobody said life was fair.

Question. How many people on this forum are likely to fill more than two of these compostable bags a week with peelings and srapings off plates? Are the dustmen really going to wheel brown bins to a truck to empty two bags, especially during the pilot scheme when there's likely to be no garden cuttings in the bin.

How is this confusing? Because there's actually two. A small brown one to put the blue compostable bag in and then to put the food scaps into. Then take it out and transfer to big brown bin, not the green one, not the blue one and not the blue (non-compostable) bag. Also, no need for the divider in the blue box now because although you've been separating your tins and plastic bottles from your glass bottles and jars for the last three years we were only making fools of you - now simply throw them in all together because we only tipped them into one pile in the first place (pans to shot of Cadbury's Smash type figures laughing holding tummies with legs kicking in air).

Peckhamgatecrasher said: "Okay - I've read the leaflet properly now! I can use the large, brown garden bin for food. That means I have a small, brown food bin and some bags going spare (I've been given 150!)..." Hang on, my leaflet says I've been provided with 50 compostable food waste bags. Why should you get 150 if I've only got 50 (and I bet if I count them there's only 49!). Is it becuase you come from Peckham? What is this blatent discrimination against East Dulwich residents? I'm going to withhold my council tax until I get 150 bags like you.

To be serious for a moment I haven't made my mind up about his appointment or the man himself. There's a lot going on in the Labour Party and he may or may not be the best person for the job. I'm no longer sure I understand what the Labour Party stands for. The old industrial base of working class voters it drew support from has changed if not disappeared. I never really understood what Blair's New Labour was about either. Who does the Labour party claim to represent these days? Ed Milliband is a highly intelligent man. He comes from an impeccable left-wing background given his father's fame. The family's immigrant background may have given them the motivation to strive to get on in a tolerant democratic country. There is nothing to suggest he is divorced from the reality of Britain's problems nor that he can't be fair minded in helping to frame policies that help all sections of society. It remains to be seen whether he can shape the Labour Party so it is clear what it stands for, who it claims to represent and whether it will appeal to those disaffected Liberal voters who feel they have been sold down the river. In short, whether it becomes a real alternative to the government that people may actually vote for in the confidence that it will provide real change and a fair society.

"He strikes me as the sort of guy who was the last to be picked to play football in the playground." It was a metaphor old chap. Let me explain. Such a person can hardly be expected to inspire the confidence of a nation. Regards, Silverfox

Loz said: "...Ed's problem is now to distance himself from the unions..." Surely Ed's problem is to show he's a man rather than the nancy boy, never had a real job, image he personifies. Bob Crowe will eat him for breakfast. Disaster for Labour in my (not so humble) opinion. Europe must be laughing it's socks off!

steveo, what possible benefit to mankind would the preservation of this old building have? How much would it cost to keep the rats dry? Who pays for it? Demolish and move on

david_carnell why are you being so defensive? I must admit I thought David M would walk it - so what do I know. I personally think this is a disaster for labour. He strikes me as the sort of guy who was the last to be picked to play football in the playground. I can't see the big boys of Obama or Putin/Medvedev being unduly worried. Nor that mad mullah from Iran with the nuclear bombs either. Here comes PC Labour, windmills on your chimneys, save the planet taxes - God help us.

Did you mean 'Tickle your fancy' above Ladymuck or did something go wrong in translation?

Have you been on the cheese-strings Axeman? If I were you I'd keep well-away from it, there's more snobbery involved than wine. Cow's milk, Goat's milk, sheep's milk, pasteurised, un-pasteurised, Artisan cheeses, hard, creamy, tangy, dulcet, blue, smoked, fondued, with fruit, with maggots etc etc. And then there's the question of when to serve it, before the main course (Italy) after the main course and so on. Perhaps those kids from down the road who eat Iceland Cheddar you refer to aren't so daft after all.

Sorry Huguenot, while you're correct that there is a doctrinal distinction, the last part of your statement below is a real howler: "...For Catholics, it's a different game. Pontifex Maximus means 'big bridge'. The pope is the direct connection between his adherents and the almighty. He is god on earth..." The Catholic church does not say the Pope is God on earth - that would be heresy. Rather Catholic tradition says he is a successor to Peter, in the apostolic tradition, and therefore is allowed to speak on behalf of God on matters spiritual. Many question this claim but it is vitally important to grasp that he does not claim to be God.