Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why didn't you do a consultation within a equal arc of distance and then draw up a plan? or is that too logical and fair.


It's really very simple - if you don't ask a group who will be impacted by parking being shifted into their streets, then when you do ask them, or wait for them to scream, you can extend, and extend, and extend the zone. By only asking a small number you get your wedge in, then all you have to do is leverage. All you have to rely on is individual selfishness, and you can certainly rely on that. If I think everyone else is having 'their' parking space preserved, but mine is up for grabs, I'll join the gaderene rush - notwithstanding the fact that everyone's 'freedom' to park, including those first asked, will be wholly compromised. When everyone had a chance of expressing their opinions then everyone realised that it would be a bad thing, just ask a very few (and lie to them about the benefits and don't disclose the downsides) and soon you will have your nice little earner, and in spades.


A great idea, particularly if you are ideologically opposed to private car ownership and the aspirant middle classes. Or, to put it another way, the majority of home-owners in ED, who represent, I believe, the majority of those living in the residential streets around the station (I know there is both rented and housing association accommodation there as well, but I don't believe it represents the majority of tenure).



that's a wilfully emotive phrase if you don't mind me saying, Penguin


Not even I am "ideologically opposed to private care ownership" - but any intelligent being can look at the amount of available space, and the numbers of people wanting a car and see that the two don't even come close, so alternatives, including encouraging people to not use a car, must be explored


Or do you feel that there is no limit to how many cars can fit into London?

Straferjack


I had not known that you were a Southwark councillor and member of the ruling labour party, to whom I was addressing those remarks - those who support this proposal may well to so for whatever reasons they want, those who proposed it have a political agenda - which is why they were elected in the first place - I keep arguing that there is nothing wrong with having a political agenda, I would just like to see it being argued openly (and indeed would like to have had the opportunity to exercise my vote in an election knowing about it).

Dear Straferjack

If you are 'Southwark councillor and member of the ruling labour party' as Penguin68 says, you should be ashamed of your council and your party. I'm in Oglander, one of the two roads sandwiched between the zones and will feel the impact far far worse than others. I have repeatedly emailed my councillor, Veronica Ward (who was at meetings with Southwark officials and could have said that the design was illogical) and other Labour councillors. They all can't be bothered to reply. I guess as a lifelong labour supporter who actually does vote in every election, I'm not worth it.

"those who support this proposal may well to so for whatever reasons they want, those who proposed it have a political agenda - which is why they were elected in the first place -"


I really don't think that's true. A political agenda isn't an abstract concept - it's an expression of competing demands and an attempt to find a path that is the least problematic.


Even if this was a top-down, revenue-raising policy cooked up by the council, it's only going to see them kicked out IF it's as unpopular as some people claim it will be. The fact is that enough people have said they want to see it for the council to go through this process. So the process isn't perfect, (it would be more expensive if it was more comprehensive) and blah blah blah. But it is still the wishes of enough people affected by a perceived problem and with this as a perceived solution (and you and I agree that it is the wrong one)


Not EVERYTHING can ever be laid out in an agenda and voted on every 4 years. But here is where we are now and people are voicing their opinions. Some more truculently than others. But people are seeing foul play where I don't believe there is


As

colville - you seemingly lack the intelligence to appreciate sarcasm and irony employed by penguin and therefore you should be ashamed of yourself


I have expressed my own opposition to the CPZ several times - do keep up


I am not a member of any party, or an elected member of anything. I do historically tend to vote labour tho

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...