Lobby Brent Council
on Tuesday, February 15th 6pm
at Brent Town Hall Wembley
Save
Charteris
Sports
Centre
For more details and help:
Join our campaign on facebook
E mail : saveourcentre2012@gmail.com
"Brent Cross / Cricklewood ... Brent has concerns about the potential negative impacts of aspects of the proposals on parts of Brent. There are particular concerns about the robustness of the transport assessment.""Brent will have to object to the proposals until revised modelling and assessments are carried out."
"should not prejudice future opportunities to provide light rail, or other fixed link, to the [Brent Cross area].”
“Brent Council is right to reaffirm its concerns about the Brent Cross transport figures, and the resulting road congestion we will all suffer. It was due to questions that the "Brent Cross Coalition" raised about Barnet Council's figure of over twenty-nine thousand extra cars a day (including at West Hendon) that led Barnet to magically revise this figure down. After five years of the high figure, It now states a more "politically acceptable" nine thousand cars, somehow managing to lose twenty thousand."Barnet has misrepresented the numbers by assuming car journeys would account for one third rather than two-thirds of trips. Brent also recognises that the transport assessment needs to be revised again in view of other new plans, such as the Wembley regeneration. However, the desire for extra money from the Brent Cross developers has completely stopped the council from representing the public interest.“In common with Brent Council, we just don’t believe these dubious figures. Barnet and the developers need to go back to the drawing board. We know the real impact their car-based scheme will have on congestion and air pollution in Barnet, Brent and the surrounding areas.”
“Alongside many local residents, councillors from all parties have been campaigning against this damaging development and the impact it will have on us. I am pleased that Brent Council planning and transport department are yet again pointing out major concerns about the severe congestion that the Brent Cross development will bring."I am dubious about the quality of the 'A5 Corridor Study' that Barnet is now trying to palm us off with. It is not going to reduce the car levels from Brent Cross one bit.“I am also delighted that all political parties at Brent Council are supporting proposals for a North and West London Light Railway – a sustainable public transport project that will go a long way to ease the gridlock and provide alternative routes right across north and west London."
It seems to be along these lines: librarians and people who work in citizens' advice bureaux or run community centres, are going to be fired. This will leave them with loads of free time to do voluntary work in libraries, citizens' advice bureaux and community centres.
“Deficit denier” is a very ugly term for those of us who have a positive and constructive viewpoint on managing the country’s financial and other problems.
We can make full acknowledgement of the deficit, and still identify different options for dealing with it. The response of ruthless cuts and austerity measures is an ideological choice made by the big three parties. For Labour and some Lib Dems to criticise the “pace and scale” of the cuts is still a pro-cuts, pro-austerity choice.
The Green Party, many unions and some economists have proposed an alternative choice. This would involve cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, saving billions every year. It would involve the wealthiest people in society pay a fairer share. It would mean saving £100bn over thirty years by scrapping Trident and its proposed replacement. It would involve a windfall tax on bank profits as well as a heavy tax on bankers’ bonuses. It would mean reducing the deficit more slowly, and thus avoiding these savage cuts. It would mean smart switching of funds from high-carbon to carbon-reduction spending (for example away from motorway-building and into public transport), and other ways of generating funds such as a green investment bank.
It would mean having enough cash to invest heavily in a Green New Deal – a major plan to kickstart the transformation to a post-carbon economy while creating a million new jobs and training places. And the new jobs would in turn bring in extra revenue to support public spending (whereas cuts will cost the country a million jobs).
Greens and many others who do not “deny the deficit” would prefer the government to make this ideological choice – based on fairness and sustainability – not the one based on destroying public services and punishing the poorest people in society.
Learning from the outdoors |
From Brent Connexions Website |