PokerTime

Doesn't sound questionable at all, but rather the end of a long process where all things have been tried without success. Underpinning is no mean feat after all.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure the IMF will be delighted to have EDF > endorsement. Indeed :D

The IMF report on housing a few days ago also warns of more problems if the market isn't cooled. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27731567 I think they hit the nail on the head from an economic perspective.

When we had border collies, it was the cat rounding them up :)

My family has a jack russel and a cat and they are fine. The cat came first. I'd also recommend Border Collies too. They are fantastic and intelligent dogs, but also agree with what most are saying above, that most puppies will be fine with a cat.

I think it does. I happened to hang out with a 74 year old former boss of mine after funnily enough a Blue Plaque ceremony locally. By 5 am I was done, whereas the 74 year old headed off to the Bussey Building for a bit of early morning clubbing with other equally 'not youngsters'!!! Old habits die hard in some :D

I defintely recommend having a chat with ACAS. They will be able to help and offer mediation services too. http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1342 *Crossed posts but great minds think alike and all that :)

I didn't come to London or Southwark until the end of Thatcher's government, but in the North of the country, schools were falling apart and lack of government investment was definitely a factor. I don;t think anyone in their right mind would disgree that there was a lack of investment in services and infrastructure during the 80s, just as no-one in their right mind would disgree that the North was decimated economically in many other respects. The right government would be one that serves interests in a fair way to all. We don't have any party like that. I kind of agree SJ but what I would also say is that outside of the three main parties (or should I say four now) it is extremely difficult for any alternatives to get going. Politics requires money, and lots of it, which already excludes many from it. And within the main parties there is also an element of nepotism. You see people who have never even served as councillors being fast tracked into safe seats and then government. That's why you end up with four Etonians in a cabinet for example, or why someone in their first term as an MP ends up leading a party over MPs that have been in Parliament for 20 years. There is a distinct element of jobs for the boys, where the right background, school, university sways more than raw merit. It's not perfect.

Guys it's a short film. Most short films are done for expenses and food. Good luck with the film immyloveday.

'The ethnic vote has now displaced the 'white working class' vote of the '50s and '60s.' What does that mean? The last majority Labour government, just like the majority Conservative government before it, needed votes from people of all classes, and all walks of life. There's a general disillusionment with politicians at the moment, which is why we had a hung parliament, and look to be heading for another one next year. As for mismanagement, that depends on how you look at things. Conservative governments tend to underspend (Thatcher's Government starved schools, the NHS and public services of investment), Labour governments tend to overspend (but deliver far better public services). Really we need to be somewhere in between. Both parties though are responsible for the growing gap between those at the bottom and those at the top. Both parties have stifled upward social mobility, and both parties have failed to bring about meaningful regeneration of economies outside of the South East and London.

Gerrard and Lampard have never been effective together in midfield against the better teams. I don't expect much from England. I think it's the first time I've felt like that about a World Cup, but will be pleasantly suprised if we do punch above our weight. And it's because of that low expectation that Hodgeson should definitely use the younsters, and give them a chance.

As shocking as it seems malumbu I don't think it's as worrying as the media portrays. Many of the established European member states are seeing a rise in similar type parties delivering the same simple (but totally misinforming) messages. I too agree with Loz, and just on immigration, the net immigration figure for last year is around 200k. That's just 0.003% of the population nationally, and 0.03% of the population of London. So people who believe UKIP on the terror they say those figures bring, just aren't looking at the issue with any kind of perspective. I think where the appeal of Farage and UKIP lies is in the idea that things should stay the same. That's why they appeal to a specific culture and demographic, and to older British people (of all ethnic groups as well). So that's where the issue immigration fits in, where Europe fits in (a lot of older people who voted for membership of a common market feel the EU is no longer just that). I do think it will be different come the General Election, when the debate will be around home front issues. But even there UKIP could do damage. The kind of people that vote for them I think won't be interested in the counter efforts of the other party to expose flaws (especially fiscal flaws) in their manifesto (when that becomes available). I am making an assumption there, but I do think that is the problem the other major parties are going to have in winning back votes from UKIP.

Fair enough admin :) Thank you for your support Sophron. Feel free to pm if you want to reply to my last post.

Did you really need to delete my post Admin before posting that request? If you are deleting that one then you should delete all the posts that are relevant to that discussion.

But experience Sophron is only ever from a small pool of people you diresctly come into contact with. The long term unemployed in London have exactly the same problems as they do elsewhere, as do the youngest and those over 45. Like you I know personally many examples of this. On inward Migration. People don't move to take min wage jobs. Why would anyone move to London to do that? Where rent is more expensive than most parts of the country? And if all the unemployed of Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield etc moved to London, there would be huge problems. The answer is not in inward migration. We've had that for the last 40 years. There needs to be incentivised regeneration of those areas, and that requires meaningful investment by the government. Somehow, we need to get businesses locating up there. Easier to do in a city, but not so easy to do in the mining areas, those towns that were built on single industries. Or do we resign all of those places to becoming ghost towns? My experience with the poor is this. When people try and try and try to find work, and get nowhere, it damages them, their self confidence, and can lead to illness. There isn't enough proactive support from jobcentres and those places have had huge cuts made too. For example the phones that used to be free for the unemployed to use, have been removed. Just something as simple as a free phone to use, for sorting benefit problems or calling employers, or chasing up jobs, can make a huge difference. But the government has taken that away. On the room front, most of the second rooms + in council flats were designed for children, and are barely large enough to house a single bed and wardrobe. If a person rents a room, they have to declare that income to the DWP. Their benefits are then reduced accordingly, so whilst it could be a solution, it isn't for those on benefits. Failure to notify the DWP would be fraud and a criminal offence. I did hear an MP mention this in a debate, and he made the point that there are unused rooms all over London that could be rented if the rules were changed. The disabled are exempt but it depends on the disability. Someone needing a carer, or needing space to store medical equipment seems to get an exemption (after a bit of a battle), but someone suffering from a mental health condition doesn't. Again, another example of how poorly thought out this policy was. All LAs have the same problems regarding availability of smaller properties. So there isn't scope to move people to other areas to solve the problem. Rent goes to the Housing Revenue Account which is then used for Housing services, like maintenance etc. So if the HRA suffers a shortfall, it impacts back on council tenants. So what is the solution? My view is that bedroom tax needs to go, asap, for all the reasons stated and more. It was an ideological welfare reform, based on assumptions and no real research. That would at least help the HRA account and reduce the arrears by 40%. Councils would continue to deal with other arrears as they always have done, using eviction as the last resort (and councils do evict people for rent arrears - make no mistake on that). Then the law can be changed, allowing councils to force tenants to downsize as property becomes available. There are other problems though. There's is always a demand outstripping supply for social housing, which in turn impacts on the flexibility of movement within the system. There are people in two bed flats needing three bed ones, one bed flats needing two bed ones. All of these changes in need often revolve around children coming and going. But it never balances out. The bottom line is that we need more council housing. Had we not sold millions of, never to be replaced, homes through right to buy, we wouldn't be in this situation today. Worse than that, we are selling off council homes and land for demolishion to private companies, under the pretence of replacing those social homes. The Heygate is a perfect example, where 3000 council homes will be replaced with just 79 social homes for rent. The council has made a loss on the deal whilst the developer stands to make ?194million. There are similar examples of this in Hackney and other places. It's called regeneration, but is really just social cleansing of the poorest people from the centre.

I too agree with Otta. Party politics don't factor as much in local elections. Many people know their councillors personally. If they do a good job, they get re-elected. Ed Miliband however, will be getting my vote, simply because I don't want to see another Conservative coalition in government. The mantra of 'we're all in it together' has proved to be complete BS. The sell off of the NHS (I think most people have issues with that) is wrong. Private interests will make a fortune from that sell off at the expense of service to us.

Where do you base your evidence on? JSA, and income support both require claimants to show evidence of having looked for work. I agree regarding inward migration, but again, it is the sign of a poorly balanced economy when huge numbers of the population have to move to one corner of it to find work. Yes education has a role to play but it doesn't matter how effective an education system a country has if there isn't the industry and other business sectors to employ people. We are not alone in this conundrum. Technology and the shift of manufacturing to the Far East, has made huge numbers of previously employable people redundant. Successive governments have had no answers to that. Those who find themselves on a lifetime of welfare are more often than not the same people who followed their parents into jobs for life in factories, mines, dockyards. The areas of the country that have lost those core industries are the ones where you'll find those dependent on benefits for a lifetime. I get really frustrated at these debates about deserving poor vs underserving poor. We have to get away from this idea that the individual is always responsible for their lot. It's not an equal playing field. The vast majority of unemployed are so because of reasons beyond their control. The long term unemployed have particular difficulty. Successive governments throw money at agencies to help them, but the success rate is always low. Employers don't employ LTUs because there's always a ready supply of labour. THAT's the problem for specific groups of unemployed in London. They just can't compete with the temporarily unemployed. And nothing the government or they try to do, changes employers minds on that. Shortages of homes has nothing to do with employment though. So let me ask you this question. Do you accept that it's unfair to penalise a housing benefit recipient in social housing when there is no smaller property available to move them into? After all, the HB reform doesn't distinguish between deserving poor and underserving poor.

There many parts of the country where the unemployment rate outstrips the no of available jobs by 10-1 or more. The young, over 45's and long term unemployed are particulalrly disadvantaged, that's before we even get onto the disabled. You are just not living in the real world if you think there are jobs out there for all of the unemployed. One million people in full time work receive housing benefit because they don't earn enough to pay their rent. The majority of people in social housing in Southwark who work earn leass that ?20k per year with ?9k being the average median. We subsidise employers in all kinds of ways, from child tax credits to childcare provision. The biggest spend of the welfare bill, more than half of it goes on the over 65's though. It is so easy to bash the unemployed, but the truth is that there are fundamental flaws in our economy, with not enough jobs, and of the jobs that do exist, not enough being secure or paying a living wage. Recipients of JSA are required to look for work and are sanctioned if they don't. Penalising through HB reforms that they can't do anything about is wrong. And many of those affected by bedroom tax are ill, in receipt of ESA or other illness related welfare. So they can't actually work. There are complexities to this issue, highlighted perfectly by the various reports published by HAs and LAs assessing the impact of bedroom tax. None of those expert organisations believe that Bedroom Tax should remain in it's current form.

A recipient of ?71 per week is expected to find ?14 out of that to pay bedroom tax (per room). Have you tried living on ?56 a week lately? That's just one straightforward example. Many of those affected are affected by the children sharing rules, the one for example that requires 16 years olds and under of the same gender to be sharing a room. I'd like to see anyone put two 16 year olds in bunk beds in a room not big enough to accomodate anything else. There are lots of problems with this legislation. And unless you have to live on that income for a period of time, you really have no idea how impossible it is. Even the most organised of people are getting into trouble. Southwark doesn't have anything like the level of high value stock to needed to work by your solution. Many LAs in other parts of the country don't have high value stock at all! The solutions are needed now, not in ten years time. That's why Labour have pledged to abolish the Tax. It's the only sensible option at this point. There are others ways to facilitate downsizing, that don't fine those, who through no fault of their own, can't be downsized. As for the general election, I don't think you'll see any difference. Southwark is a combination of safe seats and strongholds. Simon Hughes may be at risk and I know that Labour will he heavily targetting this seat. We need a government with a fair housing policy. The coalition are not interested in delivering that.

Sophron, there's another thread on these arrears and as I pointed out there, 60% of those arrears are due to Bedroom Tax hitting extremely poor and low waged tenants. Some other arrears are down to unforgiveable delays in payments by the DWP. The only people responsible for that are the current coalition government. Every LA accross the country has been hit by the impact of this. LAs just don't have the required number of smaller properties to move people into. But if you have any solutions, I for one would really like to hear them. Personally happy to see Labour retain southwark, but agree that some good councillors have lost seats due to national effect.

That's a pretty good analysis Loz. Makes a lot of sense to me.

First of all, magistrates only evict people as a last resort. In most cases, the magistrate issues a suspended possession order with a fixed repayment plan. That repayment plan will always take into account a person means, so yes, someone on a low income would be given a longer term to clear the arrears. I don't know what you want to see happen Uncleglen. Given that most tenants are in arrears through no real fault of their own, and that in most cases the arrears can be sorted out over time, making people homeless doesn't seem to be the answer (which is why magistrates only do it as a last resort).

Also, turnout seems to be around the 38% mark. So some 60% chose not to vote (for whatever reason). That I think says more about how little support all the parties really have.

East Dulwich had a turnout of 43.4 %

How is people discussing political parties in a public forum on an election day doing that to you Parkdrive?