| NEWS |  | | | | SPORT | | | | COMPETITIONS | | | | | Confronting the clampers
Reporter Alex Hayes went to a car compound near Iver to collect a car which had been towed away by a clamping company.
Click here for the audio slideshow
|
|
|
|
Barnes slams Slaughter
 |
| Mr Slaughter has come under fire. |
A TORY politician has demanded an apology from a Labour MP who voted against stopping post office closures.
Richard Barnes, assembly member for Ealing and Hillingdon, said: "Andy Slaughter failed to speak up during the debate and should now apologise to all those people he led to believe he was supporting."
Mr Barnes' criticism comes after Mr Slaughter, MP for Ealing, Acton, and Shepherds Bush, voted against a Tory motion calling for the Government to suspend the compulsory closure of sub-post offices.
Mr Barnes said: "The sight of Labour MPs, scurrying around their constituencies, claiming to support their post offices, and then shamelessly voting in favour of shutting them down, shows what a sham this Government and this consultation really is."
Mr Slaughter had previously been a vocal opponent of post office closures in his constituency, especially the branch threatened with closure in Bollo Bridge Road, East Acton.
2:31pm Saturday 22nd March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Liz, Hanwell on 8:15pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Virendra Sharma is just as bad. Labour MPs should stop this hypocracy and let their constituents know where they stand. [bold]Both Sharma and Slaughter FAILED to opopose the closures in the House of Commons on Thursday when they were gien the chance to vote[/bold] , so they are obviously both in favour of the closures, but don't want to make themselves unpopular with voters.
[bold]MP urges participation in consultation[/bold]
AN MP is calling on residents to oppose plans for the closure of seven Post Offices in the borough.
Virendra Sharma, MP for Ealing and Southall, has thrown his weight behind a campaign to save the branches.
He said: "It is a consultation and we are asking local residents to write in with their views. You can get a form in the Post Office, and then sign it and send it in.
"People are angry. It's not the closure it's the fear of closure, because it's not final.
"But even the thought of that is enough for old people who are dependant on the Post Office."
The branches which could close are in Greenford Green, Greenford, Askew Road, East Acton, Boileau Parade, north Ealing, Bollo Bridge Road, south Acton, Churchfied Road, Acton, Haven Green, Ealing, Norwood Green, Southall, and Park Parade off Gunnersbury Lane, in Ealing.
Posted by: Sarah Edwards, Green Party, Ealing on 3:14pm Tue 18 Mar 08
If Virenda Sharma is seriously concerned about Post Office closures, he should put pressure on his own government! It is his party which decided to cut the number of post offices.
Posted by: Liz, Hanwell on 4:06pm Tue 18 Mar 08
I agree entirely with Ms Edwards. Mr Sharma, local post offices are due to close because YOUR party voted for this. It's no good trying to prevent local post office closures by advising your constituents to act against the planned closures - YOU are the MP and it's YOUR job to act. This is what you are paid a large amount of money each year to do: to represent your constituents. If you don't believe that local post offices should close, then it's YOUR job to make representations in the Houses of Commons to try and stop this. I suggest you either do your job or resign.
Posted by: Nigel, Hanwell on 10:05am Wed 19 Mar 08
Well let's see how Mr.Sharma votes when MPs are given the opportunity to vote on this issue later today. Will he rebel or toe the party line?
Posted by: Malcolm, Ealing on 2:29pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Liz - do not presume you speak for all. Mr Sharma is right to promote democracy by advising people of their right to have their say and participate in a consultation. You, presumably, prefer them to be passive observers rather than active citizens. I also wonder whether you are prepared to pay more tax in order to stump up the money to meet the £3,000,000 shortfall the post office network loses every day. Very much doubt it! So no more cynical hypocrisy eh?
Posted by: Nigel, Hanwell on 5:42pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Convenient malcolm that you forget t mention that it was Mr. sharma's party who opened up the postal market to competition. This removed the subsidy which has always existed for local Post Offices by allowing private companies to cream off the most lucrative parts of the delivery business. Socialists? - don't make me laugh even Margaret Thatcher - not known for being backward in privatising public assets- recognised the value of a public mail service!
Posted by: Malcolm, Ealing on 8:08am Thu 20 Mar 08
Nigel, I cannot believe you expect hard working families to subsidise the post office network by £4 billion a week (according to tonight's news). This is a colossal sum! It could be much better spent on schools, hospitals and other vital services. Efficiency savings may not always be easy but in this instance there is a good case that they simply MUST BE DONE!
Posted by: Nigel, Hanwell on 10:53am Thu 20 Mar 08
Malcolm It's , from the Governments own figures, 4 MILLION not Billion per week. As I said above the subsidy was underwritten by other profitable areas which this government has effectively removed from the Post Office. Although we will be incovinienced in urban areas the effect on rural communities will be little short of a disaster with the local shop (which is also the Post office) likely to close in over 1000 villages. This means of course that people will have, if they have one, to get in their cars and travel to use the service. so much for the government's carbon credentials. Academic anyway, as despite their opportunistice sound bites both Sharma and Slaughter toed the party line and voted, according to Hansard, with the government at both divisions last night. This isn't about "efficiency" it's about maintaining a vital community service. No point in thinking that the affected areas will simply sign up with another carrier to offer a service as the compensation package being offered to these mainly corner, shopkeepers, precludes them from offering such services. A sad day fro over 1000 communities and the government should be ashamed particularly with the hypocricy of ensuring that the consultation period ends before the local elections in rural areas in May. I hope people remember this shoddy treatment at the ballot box.
Posted by: Liz, Hanwell on 3:23pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Malcolm, I am not a hypocrite. I simply think that Sharma is EITHER AGAINST post office closures (in which case he should be using parliament to oppose them - that's the job he's paid for), OR HE'S IN FAVOUR of them (in which case he shouldn't ask his constituents to oppose them). My personal opinion - strictly personal, is that it's ludcicrous to even think of the Post Office as a commercial business. It's not a business, it's an important public service and it costs money to maintain. It would cost less money to maintain if it was a publically-owned service, so that the public purse did not need to subsidise a private company. That's my personal opinion and it certainly doesn't represent the opnion of all. Mr Sharma's hypocrisy does not in any way promote democracy. This is a cynical attempt by Sharma to abdicate responsibility for what happens in his constituency, using the fallacy that New Labour will pay any attention whatsoever to the results of the consultation. I doubt that any voter will be fooled by Sharma's actions. You want to see active participation - well so do I. I'm waiting for the voters of Ealing Southall to vote out NuLabour stooge Sharma at the next election.
Malcolm, I am not a hypocrite.
I simply think that Sharma is EITHER AGAINST post office closures (in which case he should be using parliament to oppose them - that's the job he's paid for), OR HE'S IN FAVOUR of them (in which case he shouldn't ask his constituents to oppose them).
My personal opinion - strictly personal, is that it's ludcicrous to even think of the Post Office as a commercial business. It's not a business, it's an important public service and it costs money to maintain. It would cost less money to maintain if it was a publically-owned service, so that the public purse did not need to subsidise a private company.
That's my personal opinion and it certainly doesn't represent the opnion of all.
Mr Sharma's hypocrisy does not in any way promote democracy. This is a cynical attempt by Sharma to abdicate responsibility for what happens in his constituency, using the fallacy that New Labour will pay any attention whatsoever to the results of the consultation.
I doubt that any voter will be fooled by Sharma's actions. You want to see active participation - well so do I. I'm waiting for the voters of Ealing Southall to vote out NuLabour stooge Sharma at the next election.
Posted by: Liz, Hanwell on 4:57pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Additionally...Malco
lm, how can the Post Office be losing £3 million per day, but £4 billion or £4 million per week? The correct figure appears to be £4 million per week, or £570,000 per day.
Posted by: Nigel Bakhai, Hanwell on 11:47pm Fri 21 Mar 08
What a hypocrite - Sharma and Slaughter both voted for Post Office closures this week despite publicly saying they were supporting the campaign. Not only has he let his constituents down but now they cannot trust a word he says.
Virendra Sharma is just as bad. Labour MPs should stop this hypocracy and let their constituents know where they stand.
Both Sharma and Slaughter FAILED to opopose the closures in the House of Commons on Thursday when they were gien the chance to vote , so they are obviously both in favour of the closures, but don't want to make themselves unpopular with voters.
MP urges participation in consultation
AN MP is calling on residents to oppose plans for the closure of seven Post Offices in the borough.
Virendra Sharma, MP for Ealing and Southall, has thrown his weight behind a campaign to save the branches.
He said: "It is a consultation and we are asking local residents to write in with their views. You can get a form in the Post Office, and then sign it and send it in.
"People are angry. It's not the closure it's the fear of closure, because it's not final.
"But even the thought of that is enough for old people who are dependant on the Post Office."
The branches which could close are in Greenford Green, Greenford, Askew Road, East Acton, Boileau Parade, north Ealing, Bollo Bridge Road, south Acton, Churchfied Road, Acton, Haven Green, Ealing, Norwood Green, Southall, and Park Parade off Gunnersbury Lane, in Ealing.
Posted by: Sarah Edwards, Green Party, Ealing on 3:14pm Tue 18 Mar 08
If Virenda Sharma is seriously concerned about Post Office closures, he should put pressure on his own government! It is his party which decided to cut the number of post offices.
Posted by: Liz, Hanwell on 4:06pm Tue 18 Mar 08
I agree entirely with Ms Edwards. Mr Sharma, local post offices are due to close because YOUR party voted for this. It's no good trying to prevent local post office closures by advising your constituents to act against the planned closures - YOU are the MP and it's YOUR job to act. This is what you are paid a large amount of money each year to do: to represent your constituents. If you don't believe that local post offices should close, then it's YOUR job to make representations in the Houses of Commons to try and stop this. I suggest you either do your job or resign.
Posted by: Nigel, Hanwell on 10:05am Wed 19 Mar 08
Well let's see how Mr.Sharma votes when MPs are given the opportunity to vote on this issue later today. Will he rebel or toe the party line?
Posted by: Malcolm, Ealing on 2:29pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Liz - do not presume you speak for all. Mr Sharma is right to promote democracy by advising people of their right to have their say and participate in a consultation. You, presumably, prefer them to be passive observers rather than active citizens. I also wonder whether you are prepared to pay more tax in order to stump up the money to meet the £3,000,000 shortfall the post office network loses every day. Very much doubt it! So no more cynical hypocrisy eh?
Posted by: Nigel, Hanwell on 5:42pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Convenient malcolm that you forget t mention that it was Mr. sharma's party who opened up the postal market to competition. This removed the subsidy which has always existed for local Post Offices by allowing private companies to cream off the most lucrative parts of the delivery business. Socialists? - don't make me laugh even Margaret Thatcher - not known for being backward in privatising public assets- recognised the value of a public mail service!
Posted by: Malcolm, Ealing on 8:08am Thu 20 Mar 08
Nigel, I cannot believe you expect hard working families to subsidise the post office network by £4 billion a week (according to tonight's news). This is a colossal sum! It could be much better spent on schools, hospitals and other vital services. Efficiency savings may not always be easy but in this instance there is a good case that they simply MUST BE DONE!
Posted by: Nigel, Hanwell on 10:53am Thu 20 Mar 08
Malcolm It's , from the Governments own figures, 4 MILLION not Billion per week. As I said above the subsidy was underwritten by other profitable areas which this government has effectively removed from the Post Office. Although we will be incovinienced in urban areas the effect on rural communities will be little short of a disaster with the local shop (which is also the Post office) likely to close in over 1000 villages. This means of course that people will have, if they have one, to get in their cars and travel to use the service. so much for the government's carbon credentials. Academic anyway, as despite their opportunistice sound bites both Sharma and Slaughter toed the party line and voted, according to Hansard, with the government at both divisions last night. This isn't about "efficiency" it's about maintaining a vital community service. No point in thinking that the affected areas will simply sign up with another carrier to offer a service as the compensation package being offered to these mainly corner, shopkeepers, precludes them from offering such services. A sad day fro over 1000 communities and the government should be ashamed particularly with the hypocricy of ensuring that the consultation period ends before the local elections in rural areas in May. I hope people remember this shoddy treatment at the ballot box.
Posted by: Liz, Hanwell on 3:23pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Malcolm, I am not a hypocrite. I simply think that Sharma is EITHER AGAINST post office closures (in which case he should be using parliament to oppose them - that's the job he's paid for), OR HE'S IN FAVOUR of them (in which case he shouldn't ask his constituents to oppose them). My personal opinion - strictly personal, is that it's ludcicrous to even think of the Post Office as a commercial business. It's not a business, it's an important public service and it costs money to maintain. It would cost less money to maintain if it was a publically-owned service, so that the public purse did not need to subsidise a private company. That's my personal opinion and it certainly doesn't represent the opnion of all. Mr Sharma's hypocrisy does not in any way promote democracy. This is a cynical attempt by Sharma to abdicate responsibility for what happens in his constituency, using the fallacy that New Labour will pay any attention whatsoever to the results of the consultation. I doubt that any voter will be fooled by Sharma's actions. You want to see active participation - well so do I. I'm waiting for the voters of Ealing Southall to vote out NuLabour stooge Sharma at the next election.
Malcolm, I am not a hypocrite.
I simply think that Sharma is EITHER AGAINST post office closures (in which case he should be using parliament to oppose them - that's the job he's paid for), OR HE'S IN FAVOUR of them (in which case he shouldn't ask his constituents to oppose them).
My personal opinion - strictly personal, is that it's ludcicrous to even think of the Post Office as a commercial business. It's not a business, it's an important public service and it costs money to maintain. It would cost less money to maintain if it was a publically-owned service, so that the public purse did not need to subsidise a private company.
That's my personal opinion and it certainly doesn't represent the opnion of all.
Mr Sharma's hypocrisy does not in any way promote democracy. This is a cynical attempt by Sharma to abdicate responsibility for what happens in his constituency, using the fallacy that New Labour will pay any attention whatsoever to the results of the consultation.
I doubt that any voter will be fooled by Sharma's actions. You want to see active participation - well so do I. I'm waiting for the voters of Ealing Southall to vote out NuLabour stooge Sharma at the next election.
Posted by: Liz, Hanwell on 4:57pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Additionally...Malco
lm, how can the Post Office be losing £3 million per day, but £4 billion or £4 million per week? The correct figure appears to be £4 million per week, or £570,000 per day.
Posted by: Nigel Bakhai, Hanwell on 11:47pm Fri 21 Mar 08
What a hypocrite - Sharma and Slaughter both voted for Post Office closures this week despite publicly saying they were supporting the campaign. Not only has he let his constituents down but now they cannot trust a word he says.
Posted by: Nigel Brooks, Hanwell on 10:10pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Messers Barnes and Bakhai I urge to you use your positions as Assembly member and candidate respectively to gain far wider publicity for the way that Sharma and Slaughter voted.
Sharma was opportunistic again in the Ealing Gazette this week in 'campaigning' to save a Post Office in his constituency while, as we all know, voting not to protect these vital commuity services from closure.
Messers Barnes and Bakhai I urge to you use your positions as Assembly member and candidate respectively to gain far wider publicity for the way that Sharma and Slaughter voted.
Sharma was opportunistic again in the Ealing Gazette this week in 'campaigning' to save a Post Office in his constituency while, as we all know, voting not to protect these vital commuity services from closure.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
