Earl Aelfheah

I have to say that i have actually been swayed a little by the arguments for exit in the last week or so. Overall, I still favour remaining in the union though. I think if we were to leave, it would have a very negative impact over the next 5-10 years, but of course, in the longer terms we would survive and hopefully prosper. But then I'm not really sure what we gain for that upheaval. For a lot of people it seems to be about limiting free movement, something I see as generally quite positive. The other aspect of this is Scotland and the likely breakup of the UK. In some ways I would be much more upset at Scotland breaking away from the UK (which would be pretty likely imo) than I would about our leaving the EU.

Thanks slarti b, a really helpful summary. I hope that the route may be reconsidered, but sounds like it's unlikely.

Does anyone know when platform 15 at LB is due to go 'full width' again? The congestion caused by everyone slowly shuffling off the platform is a big part of the frustration when travelling in rush hour (also seems like it is something which could have been prioritised for resolution earlier in the works).

@steveo, think that may be a similar impulse as the high-place phenomenon.

Thanks Bic Basher, that's good news.

Hope you're OK. Sounds pretty terrifying.

I thought the Republicans had hit peak awfulness under George 'Dubya' Junior. Seems there are always new depths to plumb.

Considering the number of years involved in redeveloping London Bridge, it may have been good for TFL to have provided some additional bus services, or done something to try and mitigate the effects. I suspect things will get better once London Bridge is finished (2018/19?). That said, passenger numbers have increased massively and the provision of new capacity isn't keeping up. Denmark hill in rush hour is actually pretty dangerous. Getting on the tube at London Bridge is also pretty difficult in rush hour.

In fact, I have suggested some secure bike parking at Brixton and some more buses connecting to the tube there. This seems pretty modest to me and possibly more constructive than 'just move'. More long term I do think there needs to be much bigger improvements in public transport as the population of London grows - and yes, a particular focus on SE London, which has very little in the way of high frequency services when compared to the rest of the Capital.

I don't necessarily think we should have a direct link. I do think that journey times getting longer and longer is a problem.

...and let's those responsible for providing public transport off the hook.

It shouldn't be too difficult to get into central London and indeed in the past it has been much easier. I don't need to get into the West End regularly, but living only 5 miles away, I think it's reasonable to expect the journey to take less than an hour minimum. Losing the link between London Bridge and Charing Cross is a bummer. The Thameslink is currently so unreliable as to be unusable imo. The number of trains from Denmark Hill to Victoria have reduced significantly. Add to this the increase in bus time travelling north, the reduction in reliability in trains from ED to London Bridge and massive increase in passenger numbers and it's all pretty poor. Saying 'live somewhere else' is not particularly helpful or constructive.

Some frequent bus services to Brixton would be good. Or even some secure bike parking. Both a bit more achievable in the short term and would make it easier to get into the West End.

healey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The lack of a direct rail link north to the West > End lies at the very core of the area's transport > problems. People either trundle up Walworth Rd or > head east/west usng rail/tube links. ^this. We should have campaigned hard for a direct Charing Cross train before the works at London Bridge really got started. Think it's too late now. I'm hoping that there may be an increase in trains once TFL take over, but even if there is, it's likely to be fairly marginal.

Looks like he's going to come out of Super Tuesday as candidate for the Republican party. Could he actually end up President of the US? Anyone feeling a little worried yet?

I actually feel much less concerned for long term residents in terms of gentrification (they largely seem like beneficiaries of house price madness), and much more for the young incomers (are they hipsters), who can no longer make a place for themselves in the Capital because of high rents, low wages and unobtainable property prices. London relies on people with talent and drive coming here and making it their home. It's hard to see that's going to continue when only oligarchs and football players can afford to live here.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The truth of the matter is, many 'old time' folk > from inner London locations such as our own, grew > up in a post war world of optimism and wanting > better for themselves and their kids. Many inner > London locations were slums, including parts of > Bermondsey, Walworth, Peckham & the Elephant. > Whole families in converted Victorian bedsits > through the 50s and even 60s. They wanted better > for themselves, and who could blame them? Cashing > in the two up two down terraced Victorian house > for some clean country air isn't a crime. I am > still contemplating it myself. This is why I see > Bromley as a draw (and Kent). I've always looked > outwards and beyond, wanting to be somewhere > different to where I've spent my entire life. > > On the other hand, the incomers want the reverse. > They're sick of country air and boring lifeless > samey suburbanism. They want to experience edgy > inner London with terraced pretty Victorian > properties etc. The fur coat and no knickers label > is a bit unfair on those working class folk who > just wanted to make a better life for themselves. > > > Louisa. Sounds like win win louisa

I bought my house from some people who'd bought it under right to buy. My neighbours house is a council property. Next door on the other side was a finance director and next to them a long term resident (I think that house might be council, or they might own it don't really know. There's quite a mix anyway. I don't recognise the picture often painted on here of everyone being rich, although there clearly are some wealthy residents who you probably wouldn't have found here in the past). It may be more diverse now than before 'gentrification', at least in terms of representation across the income spread.

..and Bromley is last years Croydon. West Norwood is so cutting edge, it started the day now and by lunch time was already then.

West Croydon is the new Penge apparently.

Soup served in your cupped hands, and the bread balanced on top of your head.

Both Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill get dangerously overcrowded. ED has seen very little change in capacity over the last decade or so (it went down from 6 tph to 4 and then back to 6), despite a huge increase in passenger numbers. Fundamentally, there needs to be higher frequency trains. As SE London develops and the population grows, the need to provide similiar transport to that which already exists in most other parts of inner London also increases.

ED is quite nice. I like living here, probably more than than I would living in Penge - but then if I were to move, I'm sure I would come to like Penge just as much after a little time. If you can, you should try and live somewhere you're happy and leave others to do the same. It's not a competition. That said, Penge does have an Iceland, so it's 1 nil to Penge.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Penge is OK. I bought some carpet there and > I've > > been to the MacDonald's. I wouldn't wet my > pants > > about it though. > > Let's also not forget, Penge is home to a rather > large Iceland store along with a Peacocks. > > Louisa. That's done it. Off to Peakcocks to buy some new grundies

right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I for one would welcome further integration, a > united states of Europe would make total sense, > this half in half out mish mash is what is letting > the whole shooting match down, I have travelled > extensively throughout Europe and the USA and the > parallels are there and obvious, one state can be > so unlike another, almost like a foreign country, > they have their own laws (state) and they have > union laws (federal) they set their own taxes but > have a common fiscal union. > Only when total integration is achieved will this > great experiment succeed then we (Europe) will be > in a very strong position to stand up to the other > super-powers > > Vive L'Europe!! I think there is some truth to this.