Rockets

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The breakdown is on twitter > > > 54205952/photo/1 So it looks like the Tories and Lib Dems split their own vote - perhaps there should have been a pact between them (like is being seen in other parts of the country between Labour and the Lib Dems).

Heartblock - let's hope the council do start thinking about everyone and not just the few benefitting the most from the closures and do something to address those roads that have had increases in traffic since the LTNs went in. I think even the most showboating of pro-LTN supporters coming on here to have their say can, hopefully, at least subscribe to that.

Rahx3 - can you send us the link to the share of vote as I would be interested to see them as I can't find them anywhere? Clearly LTNs were not the key agenda item for the voters and yes, this was the opportunity for people to register their rejection of the LTNs but they didn't - there's no denying that. But Labour did, very successfully, move the agenda away from local issues to national issues - we saw it on here, lots of people saying they would vote to protest against Boris. And let me correct you, the data is not clear at all, Covid succeeded in bringing traffic down and increasing active travel - the LTN's role in that is still very unclear and something we will continue to debate for a long time. I really hope Labour will take a refreshed approach and begin to engage with everyone over active travel and not just listen to those with most to gain and ignore anyone who has a differing opinion. They haven't to date and given they didn't even mention LTNs in their manifesto and now they have even more control of the council I am not sure this leopard will change its spots anytime soon!

Southwark is even more red than it was before......

Ex, indeed and look Wandsworth had their LTNs removed and they voted Labour who will probably bring them straight back in again! ;-) And to your point Labour made the local elections about everything but the LTNs and elevated it to a national level issue - which, whilst I thought might backfire on them actually worked as they galvanised the local protest vote against the national perspective. But as I said earlier I do worry that actually dilutes the office their councillors are now filling.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Poor Londn. I wish people voted on local issues > > rather than trying to punish tories. > > They did vote on local issues. There are many more > local issues than LTNs By no means scientific but a few of our friends in Herne Hill who are very anti-LTN and terrified they are going to get one told me that they voted Labour to send a message to Boris and the Tories.....I was like...what...are you mad...have fun with your LTN when it arrives! Labour did not campaign on local issues and went out of their way to make it a national issue (certainly the plethora of leaflets that dropped through our door didn't mention anything about local issues)

Looking at the results thus far I think Labour has a problem nationally - they should have cleaned-up in these elections given the weight of the protest vote against Boris and they are losing seats in some of their heartlands to the Lib Dems. This may further galvanise the anti-Starmer elements within the party and there could be instability/infighting - on Radio 5 just a moment ago they said that Lisa Nandy had made negative comments on Starmer's leadership (which the Labour guest they were interviewing refuted BTW). Infighting and the tug of war between centre-left and hard-left within the party always kills Labour. The Tories are probably hurting from losing some key London seats but probably think they got away with one as they should have taken a hammering given what they have put people through and the scandals surrounding Boris et al. Lib Dems are probably the biggest winners thus far but the challenge for them is whether they can turn the protest vote into something more tangible at the next election but they do seem to be rebuilding via councils in many parts of the country.

Congrats to Labour - I am very surprised they have managed to come out of this without losing a single seat - but I was absolutely amazed how many friends were voting on a national agenda. Labour do need to be careful as they are basking in their well-earned victories in London but, as Corbyn found to his cost, the People's Republic of Islington isn't indicative of the country's mood and I see Labour have lost Hull and seats in places like Salford - their traditional heartlands so they can't allow complacency to creep in again as there is still a lot of work to do before the election. And, as everyone knows, Boris won't be leading the Tories into the next election so whilst he will likely be got rid of Labour are very much thinking about the next leader (which is why they have been attacking Sunak so much) and that may present a whole range of new challenges to them.

We had heard from a friend in Here Hill that they were told they could not vote unless they had their card which I thought was a bit odd.

Is a low turnout bad for Labour?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclemonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There is a reason why Wandsworth has very low > > Council tax - the services aee minimal and you > pay > > extra for everything. > > > THIS! Know from past experience. Wouldn't want to > go back there. > HP Out of interest what do they have to pay for in Wandsworth that we don't in Southwark? We seem to be paying for more and more (as extras) whilst also paying more for our council tax.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So many people I have spoke. To seem to have > been seduced by the narrative that local elections > are about national issues (driven in the main by > Labour) > > No one is being seduced. Lots of people are > hacked-off with this current Gov, we need to > prioritise, there's no point having nicey-nicey > local Gov if the country is going to pot. It's > naive in the extreme to think that if the Tories > do well in the local elections, Johnson and his > cabal won't grandstand about it and say it's a > vindication of their policies. Get rid of this > Gov, then sort out local issues... But by your own measure should you not be voting against Labour to send them a message? Since the last local election they have presided over the most humiliating election defeat of a generation as they blindly followed an ideological path that was utterly unelectable and managed to lose an infinitely winnable election - it was Labour's misstep in electing Corbyn and allowing the hard-left to drive the party that delivered more awful Tory rule. A hard-left that has its roots in councils like Southwark. So, should you not be helping fix the problem with the opposition first?

It does dishearten me when I see lots of Labour leaflets extolling the virtues of voting for them "as a vote against national Tory disgrace x, y and z". By doing this Labour are degrading the office of local councillor and ultimately diluting the need for local elections. Local elections are not about national issues they are about local issues. I very much suspect this is why turnouts are always much lower for local elections.

Legal I do wonder whether this is why we find ourselves in this mess at the local level and why councils roundly ignore their constituents. People have become so apathetic to local issues that they are happy to throw their vote away to try and influence the national picture. So many people I have spoke. To seem to have been seduced by the narrative that local elections are about national issues (driven in the main by Labour). Have we got to the point then that local elections and local councillors are a bit pointless?

Labour were asking for polling card numbers outside the DV polling station so they know who to target later in the day for a door knock. They're obviously worried in some wards and are going to mobilise pressgang squads later today.

I think overall the Tories will get a kicking nationally, especially considering the electoral pacts that seem to have been made in some areas between Labour and the Lib Dems but Labour could take a kicking in some wards here. We had another Labour activist knock on our door tonight about our voting intentions and when we said not Labour they ask why and we said the LTNs and the activist said that the LTNs were a big issue in the ward. Maybe Labour are about to find out how small that small vocal minority they ignored is?..

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just a reminder that latest data shows traffic > is > > down at all monitored sites, compared with pre > > pandemic levels. The only exception is EDG East > > (between Melbourne Grove South and junction > with > > LL, where traffic has been diverted away from a > > school entrance and now continues down the road > > before turning). Cycling and walking are up. > > Pollution has NOT increased. Despite the > continual > > hyperbole, opinion and misinformation on this > > thread, the LTN has objectively succeeded in > > increasing active travel and reducing traffic > and > > car use. > > You would think with it being such a success > labour would at least mention LTN in one of their > seven or eight leaflets they keep delivering?.. > > Or maybe they do but only in the closed/restricted > roads?maybe the cheerleaders for the scheme could > confirm??? No, even on our road, which is supposedly benefitting from the closures, not a peep about LTNs in any leaflet from Labour. It was such a strange decision - pretending the LTNs weren't an election issue.

Rah x3 - have you been drinking from the council Kool-Aid fountain again? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis And the chart goes a lot more red if you include the 15%+ area-wide decrease in traffic when comparing pre- and post-Covid numbers.

And if you don't vote expect a house visit from a load of Labour press-ganging councillors and activists around 6pm tomorrow.....;-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Always intriguing the night before an election - which way will it go? Will some of us be saying "there you go, Dulwich has finally had it's say on LTNs and has spoken" or will it be others saying "well, those 20 people on the forum who voted against Labour made zero impact". Time will tell.....

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Comments about how people are looking for > things > > to be offended at are bizarre in the face of > what > > he said! > > > > Tristan?s comments were unacceptable but it?s > just > > one example of how the anti LTN campaigners > > (Conservatives , Dulwich Alliance - though > they?re > > essentially one and the same as Clive Rates > > founded the Dulwich Alliance) make offensive > > comments to further divide. Like this from one > of > > their spokespeople: > > > > https://i.imgur.com/l9TO8tx.png > > The Tory/Dulwich Alliance candidate is comparing > his own bugbear to the events of 9/11 and > Stalinist occupation of Germany. It's completely > bonkers. The hysterical bleating by some on here > about Southwark being a "one party state" is in a > similar vein - rhetoric that's offensive to people > who actually suffered under one party states. > > All of this language is completely > disproportionate to what is - as a reminder - a > disagreement about whether a couple of junctions > in suburban London are open or closed at rush > hour. But of course this is happy turf for > Johnson's Tory party - if you can incite a culture > war by using inflammatory terms like "bumboys" and > "letterboxes", you can shift attention away from > uncomfortable topics like backhanders from > developers, hundreds of millions of pounds spent > through the "VIP hotline" for Tory donors, woeful > mismanagement of COVID, austerity, Brexit, the > affordable housing crisis, the choking of TfL and > so much more... Not they are not. One is referring to the Dulwich Village LTN as ground zero for the issues caused by them - you do realise that the term ground zero was used for a very long time before it was applied to the World Trade Centre attacks don't you? You do realise it has multiple uses: one of which is in reference to the "starting point of an activity"? And the other is comparing the building of the Berlin wall to the building of the Village LTN. Yes it's a bit sensationalist but nothing more than that - you have to admit though that the parallels are striking. Perhaps people should spend less time trying to find things to be offended about and think about why people are still banging the "why haven't they listened to us" drum. Are some of you secretly hoping the Tories win so you really have something to moan and be offended about? ;-)

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The iPlayer copy of the LTN report will be deleted > tomorrow, so have added a copy to YouTube for > those who want to watch later. > > Very balanced piece...I do love the bit where Cllr Williams says that LTNs are "one bit of the jigsaw" and then mentions ULEZ as another. He should have said that LTNs are, seemingly, the only bit of the jigsaw Southwark has! Anyway nice to see a Labour councillor admitting the existence of the LTNs (interesting they sent him to be interviewed) as it seems the DV incumbents are forgotten they exist - not a mention of them anywhere in their leaflets! Someone should do some media training for Tristan - he should have asked to be filmed with the traffic behind him not the kids rolling out of school!!!

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Comments about how people are looking for things > to be offended at are bizarre in the face of what > he said! > > Tristan?s comments were unacceptable but it?s just > one example of how the anti LTN campaigners > (Conservatives , Dulwich Alliance - though they?re > essentially one and the same as Clive Rates > founded the Dulwich Alliance) make offensive > comments to further divide. Like this from one of > their spokespeople: > > https://i.imgur.com/l9TO8tx.png Ok so the metaphorical comments made about the physical divide the council put in place in the village are designed to further divide the community? Correct me if I am wrong but the council did put a physical divide in place didn't they? Honestly, so many people seem to spend their lives trying to find things to be offended about...and then telling everyone how offended they are that they took offence to something....#usuallyonsocialmedia Funny how they only take offence when it is someone with a view opposed to theirs - they are more than happy to turn a blind eye to things that are actually offensive when the colour of the "team shirt" the person wears is the same as theirs! Few of the usual suspects on here had anything to say about Cllr McAsh's Xmas Day jumper offence (as a primary school teacher he should have known better that children would have inevitably seen it) that was further shared by the leader of our council....but that isn't at all surprising is it?

Rahx3 - not entirely correct - a small part of East Dulwich, closest to the station, has a PTAL of 4 - the rest has a PTAL of 3 or 2 and the Village and Peckham Rye areas are even worse. This is why the council referred to the Dulwich area having "poor" PTAL scores in the Transport Report of 2018. A lower PTAL score is one of the reasons for increased car use (because there aren't public transport alternatives) and one of reasons why the council said LTNs should only be put in in areas with high PTAL scores. Dulwich does not have high PTAL scores.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saw this on Twitter, the ?Ground Zero? reference > is horribly distasteful and wholly inappropriate. > Deeply worrying coming from a Conservative > candidate who wants to represent the Dulwich > Village community. > > https://i.imgur.com/ecbMI49.jpg Can you explain why you find this so offensive - the term ground zero was widely used to describe the epicentre of many things - not just bombs or the WTC...surely he is using it as a metaphor - as in the Square is the epicentre of the problems caused by the LTNs?

Was there no Dulwich Village hustings? It's really interesting as Labour are trying to make this election about everything bar local issues (today we had a flyer saying a vote for a Labour is a vote against government X,Y,Z) whilst the Tories and Lib Dems are desperately trying to make it about local policies because one party are hated at national level and the other not trusted at national level (delete as applicable). I very much suspect local issues will be at the heart of most voting intentions next week.