Huguenot

Sorry DJKQ, I think you may have got your facts wrong again. I can I assure you I really can't be bothered to wind you up, I am bothered however, that the fair citizens of ED should have at least some access to the facts of the case, and not be decieved by incorrect arguments such as the one you've just used. Network Rail didn't declare London Bridge the least used station, they declared the South London spur through Denmark Hill as the least used line through London Bridge. Anyone who's used the line as regularly as I did would know absolutely that this was the case - as a consultant I used it and various other south London services at all times of the day. From 10am until 4pm you'd be lucky if there were five people on the two carriage chugger. You're quite right about the CX trains. These trains are full all the time, and at rush hour dangersously so. London Bridge needed to free up platform space to allow more trains on these frighteningly busy routes, and The DH spur of the South London line was the obvious opportunity. A plan was drawn up with increased Thameslink, the ELL and Dartford services that more than adequately served Denmark Hill and the route, albeit with a minor inconvenience that passengers travelling from DH to LB would have to change at Peckham Rye. All other stations in the area, like ED itself, stood to benefit from increased services. The solution was a fantastic compromise that benefits hundreds of thousands of people. It increases the ease for people to access Kings Colleg Hospital, and gives access to 125,000+ new jobs for people living in the area. What Network Rail didn't expect was a crowd of irrational protesters with scant regard for the facts trying to mess things up because they've got a bee in their bonnet about a mass conspiracy to short change south London. Noses, faces, spite etc.

Excellent, I don't think the coalition talked about more spending in any area, just spending cuts and tax rises. Can I ask you to clarify another one too: "people who already pay the majority of tax object to further tax increases when it is used to pay for, as an example, monitoring of people who are security risks to this country but can't be deported due to the human rights act." I can't quite work out what you're saying here - are you suggesting that we stop monitoring security risks, or that we should throw out Human /Rights laws? Are you saying we save money by deporting possibly innocent people we suspect (perhaps through little more than paranoia) of being a security risk with no evidence, to countries where they might suffer torture or death? That would seem like a kind of a De Menezes approach, where we save money by shooting electricians first and asking questions later.

I'm not demeaning anyone's point of view DJKQ, I'm just disagreeing. This is an opinion forum, I'm expressing an opinion. Saying James' views are misplaced hardly qualifies as an 'insult'. You're attempting to bully me by making false acccusations: you trying to smear me? Plus ca change etc. I consider James views misplaced because he is favouring South Camberwell to the disadvantage of East Dulwich. He explained that he thought ED advantages could be obtained irrespective of the DH issue, I consider this to be unlikely when budget is clearly tight. If there's not enough data about London Bridge then there's also not enough data to prove me wrong - so you're heading down a blind alley with that accusation too. Since it's so easy to get the data by doing passenger interviews at DH, I suspect you don't have the data because it won't support your case. The rest of your post about South London's raw deal demonstrates what I've suspected all along: that this protest isn't about this train service at all. You've decided to use this issue as a vehicle to fight another battle. In this case some ill-supported suggestions of a conspiracy to defraud South London!!! I'm afraid I just don't think they're all out to get us. I hope you'll forgive me for saying that sounds like a paranoia-fuelled harangue - the kind of greedy rhetoric naughty kids use to get an extra pack of sweets out of mummy. That's why the protesters are deliberately keeping the public misinformed. They don't want a better train service, they want to bring down the government etc. etc. ;-)

I don't think the population is as politically savvy as you immaterial. I sincerely doubt that they elected Labour MPs on the basis of their individual persuasion, but on the overall party apperance - the New Labour project - and fear of the Tories. If left-wingers got voted in it was by accident not design. I agree with Loz: if Labour as a whole steps back into dinosaur territory, as soon as the public find out they'll drop you like a hot coal. I suspect a lot of dinosaurs would quite like that. Many of them would take immense personal joy from being a martyr to their ideology.

It's interesting isn't it? The lottery is straightforward - it's considered a charity. However, gambling's another story... Until 2001 it was 9%. However, when t'interweb started taking off big time in the late nineties all the bookies realised that they could combine this with call centers to ship their entire business to overseas tax havens. So first Victor Chandler, and then Ladbrokes and Coral upped sticks to Gibraltar and started looting the UK gambling market. This was a massive problem for UK Plc. not only was the govt missing out on the betting tax, but also the corporation tax as well. The govt could have banned offshore betting, but would have had a massive public backlash on their hands. So a deal was struck, and in March 2001 bettting tax was abolished on the proviso that all of these missing businesses would return to the UK and pay corporation tax. Gambling rose by around 40% after the abolitition of betting tax, and as a consequence the total tax take (from corp tax) was higher than the combined taxes received before the restructure of the market. Everyone won!

There's an increase in Thameslink trains to 4 per hour. It stops at City Thameslink. It also offers an improved service to Luton Airport. I'm sure that the timing of increases in train services are linkeed to budgets as well as practicality. I agree with your point about people currently choosing London Bridge, but in our minds eye we have the jammed trains at ED and PR, not the virtually empty trains at Denmark Hill. The ED and PR trains are still proposed to be running and with greater frequency. The protesters are thriving in this confusion. I commuted directly into Victoria from DH when I was at Yahoo! - I could still do that commute under the new service, and there was virtually no-one getting on that train to go to London Bridge. There were plenty at Peckham Rye - and that direct service is still running.

Sweets are luxuries, conferring no health benefits and increasing the drain on the NHS ;-) Can that 25p be multiplied many times? I thought these guys were on benefits? If these guys are spending much more than ?10 a week on luxuries they're hardly on the breadline? I mean they've got to spend ?40 a week on luxuries just for that 25p to turn into a ?1.

I don't think anyone has suggested more spending Magpie - that's a frequent misunderstanding. When the economy dives the tax take dives too. In order to accommodate this the government has to do two things - cut back in services and increase the percentage of GDP taken in taxes. In fact the tax rises will still generate less spending. The second question is who carries the cost of those rises. We operate progressive taxation in the UK, which reflects the fact that wealthier people are correspondingly more able to pay tax. It's recognised that people earning less than 10k are realistically well below the poverty line. It would take a spectacularly Victorian approach to society to try and make up the tax deficit by taking food from their mouths to support the luxury spending binges of people with multiple houses. However, if those low income households are spending on luxury items, they'll get clobbered with additional VAT.

Ooops, sorry, that came across wrong! I wasn't having a pop at PGC, I was making a joke about the personification of God as a self-righteous transgender Hyacinth Bucket. He did after all know that His Son was on the rack and let him die anyway so that He'd get worshipped all the more... The original 'you' was a hypothetical. In Price Charlie's parlance would be 'one', as in.. "If one was an omnisicient omnipotent superbeing who... etc. etc."

Well, a pair of Primark jeans may come in at ?12. With the change of VAT the retail price could potentially by ?12.25. I think if this additional 25p is going to break the bank then you probably don't need the jeans that much. I last bought a piece of clothing 14 months ago and all my pants are at least 6 years old ;-) If I'm dependent on benefits I'd probably steer clear of keeping up with this season's fashions. I mean, come on, the nation's going bust and the only ones who don't have to tighten their belts are the ones other people are paying for?

I understand where you're coming from James. As a local politician your views, however misplaced, are likely to be very attractive to certain voters. I suspect you may have overlooked the benefits to your own ward. It has never been claimed that the changes are solely with the objective of improving access to Denmark Hill from London Bridge. It's part of a radical overhaul of South London services that benefits everyone in the long run. Specifically Denmark Hill (not 'the area' generically) might not be as attractive for people who work specifically at London Bridge or South Bermondsey - this goes without saying. That's also just about it. It's also a completely lopsided way to look at it. You've missed just about every single positive. East Dulwich (your own ward) will be more attractive - with an increased DIRECT service (up to 8 trains/hour) from ED to London Bridge at peak hours allowing commuters more pleasant and timely journeys. As ED councillor I'd expect you to be celebrating this rather than trying to prevent it in order to benefit people outside your ward. More generously, 30,000 more people will be able to get to Kings within 30 minutes. That's a collosal number. An additional 125,000 jobs are now within commuting distance of Denmark Hill. That means salaries, wealth and regeneration for South Camberwell. Nunhead is finally getting a quality service to the City, allowing it to flourish as a residential zone with consequent benefits to local ED businesses. It will be far a more attractive area to people who work and live in Clapham, City, Blackfriars, Farringdon, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, Islington and huge regeneration areas in East London. In short, presenting this relentlessly as a negative is pandering to the worst natures of a poorly informed electorate, when really politicians should be thinking about how to inform, inspire and generate the best for our area. Support East Dulwich business and commuters - say yes to the South London Rail overhaul.

I'm trying to be contentious, illiberal [word?] and most definitely not wishy washy.

In where - the Lounge or the DR?

Then you should meet her - you're both green-leaning and have dogs call Hannibal! :))

Existing workers/patients who live west of DH as far as Victoria will be able to continue their journeys to the hospital exactly as before. Train frequency is 3 an hour at rush hours, and 2 at other times. There'll be an additional ELL service 4 trains/hour allowing people in areas such as Clapham and beyond get to Kings easier. This service also means that frequency of trains serving Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road will double from 2 an hour to 4. Great eh? Existing workers/patients who live east of DH as far as Peckham Rye and Queens Road will see their service increase to 4 per hour at QRP, and increase to 11 an hour from PR Even better eh? Unfortunately although passengers from London Bridge and South Bermondsey will see services increase from 6 to 8 at rush hour, they will have to change at PR, waiting an average of 3.5 mins and a maximum of 7 minutes. However, connections on the ELL to the whole of the East End will see workers/patients from that region have so many additional other swift options that London Bridge will have a much lower priority. All in all, more than 30,000 new people will be within 30 minutes of Kings College Hospital services. ....and that is an absolute winner.

Now that's a great question! I assumed it was just the headline rate. There'd be an almighty kerfuffle if they tried to change the others. Did you know the following are all VAT exempt: Food (except booze, sweets, fizzy pop and takeaways) Education Medicine and health activity/products Lottery tickets and other betting Financial services (like credit cards or loans) Books & Magazines Kids clothes Cultural visits/events Charity stuff Disabled people's stuff Sports activities New homes Aircraft Freight Public transport Postage Insurance These attract lower rates (5%): Female sanitary products Power Changes to existing homes Heating / insulation stuff I quite agree that zero rated stuff are necessities, and there cannot plausibly be any change in their status without riots. The only thing I note about the 5% rated items is that they should also be zero rated!!! If the rate goes up by 2.5%, it means that consumers would need to cut back their purchases by 2.1% to accommodate the savings necessary. I can't see any argument for increasing welfare payments in the short term to support the purchase of non-necessity items. If guys on the welfare are spending substantial sums on luxury goods then it's not unreasonable to point out that they need to cut their expenditure on booze, sweets and Levis by 2.1% because the economy's fecked and it's not their money anyway.

Ah, no worries. :) There will also be 6 trains per hour running direct from London Bridge to South Bermondsey on Saturday afternoons - that's a 50% increase after the changes. Sadly this namby pamby West Ham fan would have to go via Heathrow. Heathrow will have no improved services.

I feel quite a failure. I aim very very low, but am clearly fated to be liberal, wishy washy and uncontroversial. Whether I'm a man or not is undecided. I'm also guessing that Daizie's taste in men may be more easily satisfied in Middlesbrough. ;-)

There are currently 6-8 trains per hour from DH to PR, this will raise to 11 after the changes. Eleven!!!!! Passengers wishing to catch the train from DH to London Bridge will need to change at either PR or QRP, and will wait an average of 3.5 minutes and a maximum of 7 mins.

"Currently those that get the train from QRP, get to QR in the morning and hop on a train to London bridge - there within 10 mins. They would AIM for certain train to reduce platform time. Then they get the tube and carry their journey on In future they'd have to get a train to PR or Canada Water CHANGE. Then wait for another train and get on that to london bridge " No! Again!!! :D They would go to QRP and catch the train direct to London Bridge. Currently QRP gets 6 trains an hour direct to London Bridge. After the changes thaey will have 8 trains per hour at rush hour. That's MORE. Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!! All the trains from QRP still go to London Bridge. They just won't go from DH to London Bridge. You will be able to get from DH to QR DIRECTLY on the ELL. Please R&A, you need to check the reality, not listen to the wool pullers. The pdf's on a previous post of mine. PGC, currently there are 4 trains per hour from ED/PR to South Bermondsey. After the changes there will be 6 per hour. Your trip to The Den will be even MORE convenient!! Boris supports the protest because it gives him votes in Southwark he hasn't got. He doesn't need any more votes in Bromley, he's got them all. Tess supports it because she's the Southwark MP.

;-)

*moves trumpet to the deaf ear and smiles pleasantly* :))

:-$ Ah, you're too kind! http://john-manns-wacky-site.com/misc/irish/pictures/chump.jpg

Why would I move on? I'm enjoying exposing these double talking cads. ;-) Most of these people aren't protesting because of the facts, but because they want to be part of a lynch mob. Makes 'em feel good. All these customers have to do is change at Peckham Rye. PR will have MORE services. Hardly the end of the world is it? But for this minor inconvenience they're willing to trash the benefits of a better transport system across South London? The reality is they can't see beyond the end of their own noses. I don't mind that so much, it doesn't make me cross - it's the absolute brazen bullshitting that goes with it. R&A is typical - 'here to discuss LOCAL issues such as the CUTTING of local transport services' Not it's NOT. There will be MORE trains per hour serving MORE stations and MORE people. This crap is what drives me nuts. 'It's not just Denmark hill either, it's other stations like Queens Road, Battersea, Wandsworth Road and Clapham' No it's NOT. That's just another piece of nonsense: Queens Road still has a regular service, just not from DH. Wandsworth Road and Clapham will have MORE services from DH. I don't know if R&A has ever been to Battersea, if he has he'll be familar that it gets a train a minute, I don't think they'll be crying over a lost service from DH. As a regular user of that service in the past I can tell you that the number of people getting on at Battersea and getting off at DH could be counted on no fingers. I can also tell you that the number of people getting on at DH and getting off at Queens Road could also be counted on no fingers. If the campaigners can't tell the truth then that makes them charlatans, manipulative destructive spoilers.

Well if it's investing to prevent being a state liability, the Lib Dems only proposed dropping top rate tax relief on pensions and treating CGT like any other other earnings. Since the majority of people in the UK are not on top rate tax (and they're the ones who could possibly be a liability) it makes no difference to the pensions of anyone but the rich. CGT tax mainly hits people with 3 or more houses driving a housing bubble - usually independent buy to let landlords. It doesn't affect people with 2 houses because they'll just put the house in their partner's name and flip residences when they sell. Personally I think that buy to let landlords are a cancer on the housing market that undermines the very foundation of our society. If we can stop them getting rich off the salaries of starving first time buyers, the better. I'd prefer a law banning multiple domestic housing purchases. Anyway, Capital Gains Tax hasn't specifically been raised it's been given equivalency with other earnings - thus less wealthy people can now make money through capital gain on investments at a lower rate than they could previously! So there's now a massive incentive for poor people to invest! Hurrah! So really your arguments only apply to top rate tax payers or rip-off landlords - and given that they pay a much smaller proportion of their income through taxation, I don't think they should be moaning about that.