Cameron does a Gordon Brown...

SingleSue

custardy wrote: »

must be a small office
As RM closes and amalgamates delivery offices it allows for longer opening hours
of course then people complain the office isnt local anymore



nothing to do with London,just as above,the larger offices open longer
opening the office longer is a pure cost with regards to staffing
theres no real revenue generated at the door

Diddy, the main waiting area is not much larger than my toilet, you can get maybe 3 people in there at a time and even that is a squeeze and leaves the door unable to be opened.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

toby3000 wrote: »

One of the easiet ways to reinvigorate the high-street is to wort out the parking issue, but I don't think it should be by making parking free in towns but by taxing it in out-of-town shopping centres. If you wanted to it could be ring-fenced and used to improve the environment in city-centres. I'm pretty sure that Labour was meant to introduce this in their first term but were lobbied out of it by the supermarkets.

Just..... wow!!!

How the hell did Labour do it? Some drug induced mass hypnosis???

I mean, how is it possible that so many people can have been brainwashed into such utter self-defeating stupidity as to suggest that the cure to screwing up an entire section of the retail industry through over-regulating and stealth taxing parking, is to now screw up the other section of the retail industry by making exactly the same mistake.

I despair.

For the love of God man, snap out of it!!!!

Now look into my eyes and repeat after me.....

Stealth Taxes Are Bad.....

Stealth Taxes Are Bad.....

Stealth Taxes Are Bad.....

Stealth Taxes Are Bad.....

Loughton_Monkey

I have no idea why.

I just had the urge to issue a post that says Stealth Taxes are Bad.

toby3000

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Just..... wow!!!

How the hell did Labour do it? Some drug induced mass hypnosis???

I mean, how is it possible that so many people can have been brainwashed into such utter self-defeating stupidity as to suggest that the cure to screwing up an entire section of the retail industry through over-regulating and stealth taxing parking, is to now screw up the other section of the retail industry by making exactly the same mistake.

Paying for parking isn't a stealth tax, unless you imagine that land has no value. Paying for parking is just paying to use land. The issue of the high-street aside, we shouldn't be encouraging people to drive everywhere anyway.

I don't have a problem with stealth taxes as a rule. People who do things that are costly to society should help fund it, if they can.

ninky_2

paying for a service at the point of use is hardly a left wing idea is it? having free public parking - or rather paid for by taxation - is a more left wing idea.

if we are going to look for examples of things we expect free at the point of use now being charged for we need look no further than tory controlled wandsworth council and their new fees for using a playground in battersea park.

now what was that about brainwashing?

chewmylegoff

FTBFun wrote: »

I'm a bit fortunate in that my one also opens to 8pm on a Wednesday so I can get there after work. One benefit of living in zone 2 in London I suspect.

well, i used to live in zone 2 in london, and my local collections didn't do that. i can also confirm that it didn't happen when i moved to zone 3, and it isn't the case now i live in zone 4. so, i think you're just lucky!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ninky wrote: »

paying for a service at the point of use is hardly a left wing idea is it?

Paying for it twice is.

Us right leaning people think pay per use should replace taxation for a service, not pay for it twice.

And forcing private property owners to impose a usage tax for vehicular access to their land is most certainly a lefty idea.

FTBFun

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, i used to live in zone 2 in london, and my local collections didn't do that. i can also confirm that it didn't happen when i moved to zone 3, and it isn't the case now i live in zone 4. so, i think you're just lucky!

Well to be fair, they've only just started doing it (the red card says "NEW! Open to 8pm Wednesday" or something).

ninky_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Paying for it twice is.

Us right leaning people think pay per use should replace taxation for a service, not pay for it twice.

And forcing private property owners to impose a usage tax for vehicular access to their land is most certainly a lefty idea.

so how do you explain the charges for the childrens play area in battersea park - a play area already paid for by taxation...or are wandworth council run by loony lefties masquerading as conservative?

it's hard to say what counts a paying for something twice - you could say introducing a charge at point of use merely frees up for revenue from taxation to go to other things rather than paying for it twice.

ILW

Many years ago (70s) I lived and worked in both Lewisham and Bromley.
The left wing council in Lewisham decided to have a policy of "discouraging" car use by charging for parking and limiting the amount of parking available. It turned the retail sector into a virtual wasteland whilst Bromley did the opposite and built multi storey car parks etc and went on to have one of the most thriving high streets in South London. This also bought in a lot of income to the Borough.

Lewisham never really came back from it and Bromley is still going from strength to strength.