Earl Aelfheah

It does sound like Shenley is a nightmare, but the situation is probably in no small part, a symptom of CPZs in surrounding streets. This is the problem, CPZs create new problems along their borders. Councillors, as we have seen, think that only those within a proposed CPZ should have a say, treating each area as a discrete concern, with no sense of the bigger picture. The situation in ED is quite different. There are no streets where people are having to wait for over an hour to find a space across 4 roads. Of course, if we introduce a CPZ around the station, those roads a little further out may well start experiencing such problems, as parking which was dispersed across a wider area get's concentrated on a smaller number of streets around the CPZs border.... and so the continual expansion goes on.

Exactly Penguin68. Where did this idea come from that using ones car to travel is somehow unacceptable - that roads should only be used by those living on them? It seems to me that this completely misunderstands what a car is for.

... ad hominem attacks might be considered unprincipled however.

Cameron didn't agree to a referendum because he wanted the people to have their say. He made the decision from a place of political weakness. All of this was really about Cameron temporarily fending off attacks from within his own party and clinging on to power for a bit longer.

@James, I live about 10 minutes walk from the station. I don't drive and park at the station if that's what you're implying (I usually walk to work (about 35-40 minutes away), occasionally cycle, or get the bus if working on a different site). None of this is particularly relevant of course, or really any of your business, but there you go. Whilst I accept that people on the street should have their voices heard, so should others who will suffer the knock on impact of any CPZ. Just because you don't agree with my views does not mean that they are 'unprincipled'.

James Barber - do you live near the station? What road do you live on?

James - that's ridiculous. Unless I live near the station, I can't have a view on the creation of a CPZ? Why, because if you don't live on the road, then you are not objective, but have a vested interest. I think it's exactly the opposite way round.

One thing's for sure, profits will keep being made, regardless of what passenger's or staff's experience is like.

This is the problem, once a CPZ is introduced in one area, it has it's own unstoppable momentum. They expand until they're all conquering. Soon, no one will be able to go anywhere by car and they'll have to pay to keep it on the road.

Most people of course, don't choose to drive to the train station (it's easier to walk or get the bus), but for some, either due to mobility issues, or time constraints, it might be necessary, or simply convenient. There seems to be a prevailing view that cars should be restricted to only main roads, that they should only be parked outside the drivers house and shouldn't be used for travelling to places. This seems crazy to me. When the whole of London is a CPZ, the streets will just become storage spaces for people who want to own a car but not use it.

Walker, the cycling dog, sounds like a very talented canine

M&S opening on the Lane scares me. It will only take a Waitrose to follow and the universe might implode.

The other half of (what was) the deli / next door to sweaty's has a sign up saying something about selling crafts and buttons. I wish them luck

... and with those currently in government, if we do exit, they will use the opportunity to further deregulate, privatise and squeeze wages.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honestly rahrahrah, do you think Jeremy Corbyn and > the far left of the Labour movement are pro-EU? > Just because the people at the top of the public > campaign for 'out' are former businessmen etc > doesn't mean the entire campaign is dominated by > them. Most sensible people who want us out of the > EU are doing so because we care about the future > of this country and by controlling the borders in > one way or another we will be able to naturally > create a rebalance in the demand/supply chain of > the housing/labour market. BUT, only if that is > done by the right people. Not only by said > business interests you mention. > > Louisa. I dont' think they're pro EU particularly, but then i didn't mention Corbyn or 'far left' (the communist party?). My point was that much of the dissatisfaction aimed at Europe is actually about neo-liberalism. I'm not sure that leaving the EU is going to deliver on many of the issues that those in favour of Brexit are thinking it will. IMO, their grievances are misdirected.

Unfortunately a lot of the young people registered to vote at their student residence will be on break (or not registered at all) and many more at Glastonbury

The out camp are using immigration as a convenient cloak for what they really want. Less regulation, fewer employment protections and lower taxes. If we vote for Brexit, it won't make it easier for people to get on the housing ladder. It won't mean wages go up, or there is a more equal distribution of wealth. I don't buy it. Look at the people who are trying to sell the idea and ask where their interests really lie.

Blah Blah is right. The problem is that neo-liberalism has lost sight of what an economy is for... who it is meant to serve and this is where a lot of the disenfranchisement and anti-establishment feeling comes from. The problem is, it's incredibly misdirected in my opinion. The idea that we should completely deregulate and allow a small number of wealthy individuals free reign, is surely discredited by now? Letting people with money and power make their own rules and thinking that they'll create wealth for everyone is nonsense. What happens, as we have seen, is that they'll enrich themselves further at the expense of society. It's the working classes who have lost out as a result of market deregulation and the wierdest thing in all this is that many have now formed an unholy alliance with the very people responsible. In my opinion the Brexiteers don't really want less immigration, just immigration from further abroad, where people can be brought in even cheaper. We vote out and Gove, Boris, Farage et al, will usher in more neo-con economic policies, less regulation, lower wages and more inequality.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The new Routemasters are small because they have > to be. They are used on services that include > roads that normal size double deckers cannot > easily use. That is why bendy buses were tried, > they are more maneuverable, but their length > caused problems for other road users and they > tended to end up bunched together. On some routes > they were replaced by single deckers on others the > new purpose designed Routemasters. So, not a > vanity project, but required for s specific need. > > I welcome the Garden Bridge. Yes, of course the > money could be spent on other more worthy causes, > but that is always the case whenever a new high > profile development is mooted. No wobbly bridge, > no London eye, no Tate Modern, no Globe Theatre, > no Borough Market, no South Bank Centre. > > The place would be dull and grey but terribly > worthy. The point is that the Tate Modern, the Globe theatre etc., weren't paid for by funds diverted out of tfl's budget. My objection is not with creating 'attractions', but Boris plundering the transport budget to do so.

As an 'attraction' it's one thing. My big issue is that once again (as with the gondola) Boris raided the TFL budget, claiming that it wasn't just a tourist attraction, or vanity project, but an important piece of transport infrastructure. But then Boris repeatedly gets away with outrageous untruths, lazy misjudgments and bad behavior.... basically because he's quite funny, has a well practice bumbling persona and floppy hair. It's maddening. The London Eye was funded privately and wasn't built at the expense of desperately needed transport improvements.

It sounds like a great idea, but Fox might have a point. Whether it would be financially viable I'm not sure. That said, if it were heated that would be a big draw.

A lot of people virtually live in 'active wear'. It's not necessarily just for going to the gym in.

LD929 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DE is absolutely shameful. ^this

@James Barber...My Angle? As stated, I want a considered, strategic approach to allocating resources and prioritising investment. I would like to see those streets were speeding is a problem or where accident rates are high targeted for action. Not the street where a small number of residents make the most noise.

Sounds good