Local councillors who never respond

[cella]

As mentioned earlier I think politicians are elected to vote along their own and party manifesto lines. So we vote them in then they act appropriately along those lines. They would be torn apart if they tried to only represent the many and diverse demands of their constituents. We can then vote them out if necessary - this is democracy.

[uncleglen]

There is a lot of difference between local government and Central government. Unfortunately when they are opposing parties (as now) they tend to use the public services as a political football - they get the money from central government but they can use it exactly how and when they like- because you voted for them- and then they blame stuff on 'government cutbacks'.

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is a lot of difference between local

> government and Central government. Unfortunately

> when they are opposing parties (as now) they tend

> to use the public services as a political football

> - they get the money from central government but

> they can use it exactly how and when they like-

> because you voted for them- and then they blame

> stuff on 'government cutbacks'.

Oh change the record for God's sake, you've been banging on about this for years and it remains utter nonsense. London councils have had their budgets cut by 75% since 2010, but you continue to spout the same ridiculous claptrap, claiming councils could really provide the same services as before but they're deliberately not doing so to irk the government. You clearly judge everyone by your own standards; fortunately the majority of local councillors and officials aren't as spiteful, paranoid, bigoted and downright foolish as you.

[James Barber]

Hi Rendelharris,

Southwark Council have not had their budgets cut by 75%.

Southwark Council General fund ?315M 2009/10 (govt grants of ?227M, council tax ?88M); ?348M 2018/19 but this includes Public Health ?27M so compared to 2009/10 ?321M (govt grants ?212M+?26M business rates growth which in 2009/10 went to central govt, Council tax ?110M).

The Council Tax growth is mostly lots of new studio, 1 and 2 bed flats near the river - many left empty and those lived in by people who use few council services.

2016/17 the ten year capital plan was ?1,855,466,000 for Southwark or ?1.86bn.

The 2006/7 ten year capital plan was ?814,983,000 or ?0.81bn.

In February my lot presented sufficient back office changes to avoid any council tax increase and also see increases in some front office expenditure. These were rejected by the administration.

Regards James.

[rendelharris]

With all due respect (genuinely) James, you're being more than a little disingenuous: so the budget in 09/10 was ?315M and the budget in 18/19 321M? Using the handy inflation calculator at this is money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html) you can see that ?321M in 2009 is equivalent to ?403M in 2018, so in real terms the budget for Southwark has been cut by 26% (the 75% figure, as I mentioned, is for all London councils - I believe outlying councils have been hit harder).

[moondancer]

Milan05 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James Barber you represent the concept of open

> democracy and as many have said, changed people's

> lives when they felt they had no way of navigating

> the system. Your 12 years is immeasurably valued.

hear hear ! gentlemanly, responsive, alert and well researched

[James Barber]

Hi rendelharris,

That's weird. Because if I do the calculation of CPI - council's don't have mortgages that are included in RPI - it comes to ?373M.

2002 the council revenue budget was ?379M which from the then government grant cuts was ?319M by 2010.

Governments of all hues and persuasions have been reducing grants to councils and limiting how much councils can increase council tax. And their is still back office savings that can be made while improving services.

[Jim1234]

Back office savings? You mean job cuts and outsourcing?

Liberals = Tories light. It's OK to cull half the workforce as long as the board is 50% women.

[James Barber]

Hi Jim2134,

It is ok to spend your council tax on providing front line services and minimising the necessary spend to support those front line services. It is not ok to needlessly spend more money on support than actually needed.

Also some savings can be made from changing the finical management. Not borrowing so much at average 5.5% when so much is earning next to zero interest in bank accounts - internal borrowing - and we're talking millions of savings do this.

[Bagpipes]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Many appear to see being a Southwark Councillor as

> a stepping stone to becoming an MP in a safe

> parliamentary seat - you can never accuse a Lib

> Dem of that! They move to London do a PR job, MP

> researcher, union official. Become a councillor

> for a London borough near parliament - Southwark

> is very popular for this. Get selected in their

> home town for a Safe Labour parliamentary seat.

> Get elected an MP. Usually 2-3 councillors in

> Southwark do this each national electoral cycle. I

> would question their loyalty and dedication to

> whichever part of Southwark they get elected to -

> we're just a stepping stone and they don't suffer

> the consequences of their councillors decisions.

> It drives short termism.

>

Ahem. The last two to do this* were Lab cllrs Helen Hayes and Neil Coyle. Helen is, by all accounts, an excellent MP for Dulwich and West Norwood and a worthy successor to Tessa Jowell. Neil has turned Bermondsey and Old Southwark into a safe Labour seat after 33 years' worth of Lib Dem Simon Hughes ("the straight choice"). Neither Helen nor Neil's commitment to Southwark can be remotely doubted. James, it is sour grapes that you lost so spectacularly to Helen Hayes when you yourself stood for parliament as a sitting cllr in 2015?

*neither of them did what James describes.

[Lee Scoresby]

Just to point out to EDF'ers that the local Labour machine moved very rapidly - within just several hours - to blunt and appropriate even this modest critical discussion of their operation. Labour trusties evidently posted under several identities, employing textbook elements of rhetorical diversion and bad faith:

There is insinuation (who suggested that councillors respond to uncivil messages?) and sleight of hand, so that "not getting the response you want" is somehow the same as no response at all. ("Anyway - nudge-nudge - it's just those dog owners making trouble again.")

Then you the public are held to blame for failing to rush around sufficiently to make the system work. (?Not trying hard enough, plebs!?)

Most of all, there is disingenuous upsidedown insistence that this or that party manifesto of the moment expresses - exclusively and exactly - the sacred democratic will. That rejecting this nonsense is "moaning and groaning". (From where else do we hear this sort of toxic language now?) For our representatives actually to respond to our daily problems, opinions, objections and ideas would result in their being "torn apart" according to 'cella'. Well! Poor little petals, eh? That must be avoided - at all costs!

Which all leads to Penguin68's truly grotesque remarks about the "great danger" of a "disruptive party" overturning the status quo. Sweet Jesus. I would call that overdue democratic renewal. A democratic system is for the people, not the people for the system. Our toolbox, not our master. In contrast, James Barber sets out (26 July, 10:26AM) in simple, chilling detail just how the present party system and those within it operate, entirely insulated from those they supposedly serve.

Part 2 of the Labour operation comes into play with the appearance of Cllr McCash?s posts. Good luck to him, seriously. If he is as genuine and hardworking as he wishes to appear, he will garner the sort of reputation James Barber has. If not, he will be found out.

(And as to reputations, Penguin68, "proud rebel? Hamvas is best known right now as the me-too to anti-dog wingnut Barrie Hargrove.)

Colville9, your swipe at James Barber is delusional. Politics is not a church choir. It is the endless negotiation of difference and of public planning. Why should he not refer to this or that party, or - not least at local level - to this or that individual? He was a highly regarded councillor, not some painted plaster saint. Quite, quite bizarre!

(Perhaps without his intending it) Barber's remark, that Labour are happy to shoot down good ideas from the Lib Dems, reminds us that not just party monopolies but tired long-term duopolies ? such as Southwark has been for many decades ? is equally against the public interest. Because I do not doubt that the Lib Dems were happy to scotch Labour suggestions when they were in power.

I have no sympathy for the idea that councillors are 'too busy' to reply to messages. If she or he has no time to pee, she or he must vacate the pot for someone who does! Otherwise she or he is simply a party placeholder, political filler, a blocker, preventing the proper representation of that ward. Busy efficient councillors may take a little time to reply to messages but they do reply ? and more, they take appropriate action. No, what we are discussing here is indifference, silence, the permanent refusal to engage. To confuse these two is - yet again - disingenuous, another sleight of hand.

And of course - sigh - at a certain point, 'cella' offers us a patronising declaration about how lucky we all are and what a precious jewel is democracy. Well, y'know, democratic is as democratic actually does. Which is where this thread came in.

Lee Scoresby

[cella]

Lee - your original post raised an issue about getting a response from elected councillors. Lots of posters, including myself, offered help in progressing that - don't know if you've had a chance to follow up on any of them? Perhaps you can let us know the outcome. Subsequent posters were replying to each other and it appears you've interpreted them in a personal and negative way. Shame as what you've chosen to call patronising and bizarre are genuine responses from people who feel strongly about democracy. You've also assumed that all posters are Labour supporters which may not be the case.

[Penguin68]

Which all leads to Penguin68's truly grotesque remarks about the "great danger" of a "disruptive party" overturning the status quo. Sweet Jesus. I would call that overdue democratic renewal.

Just for clarity, Lee, I was writing in support, for goodness sake, of your position. I was warning any labour apparatchiks reading this that a complacent incumbent party that took no notice of its electorate would be replaced, eventually, by a party which acted to disrupt that status quo - as the SNP did in Scotland. I would rather parties listened to their electorate all the time, not assumed that they only had to once every three years, and then only briefly. I would rather have no reason to revolt, frankly. The 'great danger' I implied was to labour in Southwark, not to Southwark in general.

[siouzie14]

We had excellent councillors in what is now Dulwich Village Ward - Conservatives Jane Lyons and Michael Mitchell. And before that the late Toby Eckersley. They got things done as did Lib Dem James Barber in East Dulwich. Since the May 2018 election it has been all change and now the four wards and nine councillors that make up the Dulwich Community Council are all Labour. The new Dulwich Village councillors Richard Leeming and Margy Newens have been very active, attending meetings and achieving things - a good sign. Dulwich Wood councillor Andy Simmons is Chair of the DCC and is an excellent person to approach if you have any specific issues you can't get responses on. His co-councillor in Dulwich Wood is Catherine Rose who is the new Mayor of Southwark. As far as the new Dulwich Hill and Goose Green wards are concerned Charlie Smith (Goose Green) and Jon Hartley (Dulwich Hill) continue as councillors albeit in new wards, and they know the area. I don't know the new councillors (eg Victoria Olisa, James McAsh etc) who are no doubt finding their feet. If you aren't getting a response my suggestion is to talk to or email Cllr Andy Simmons. All email addresses are on www.southwark.gov.uk

PS I am not a Labour voter but strongly believe in cross-party collaborative working to achieve improvements in the area.

PPS I don't know whether the councillors all post on the EDF and whether they are expected to.

[Bagpipes]

@siouzie14 I think that's a fair summary

[BrandNewGuy]

Indeed. "They got things done" are the four most important words there. If they can't do that, I don't care about their political affiliation.

[Zebedee Tring]

I have never voted Tory in my life (and never would). However when we were objecting to a planning application about 18 months ago our then two Village Ward Tory Councillors Lyons and Mitchell were very helpful, and one of them spoke on our behalf the relevant Sub Committee meeting, while the ward Labour Councillor (can't remember her name) failed to reply to any of the emails that we sent her. It would appear that the local Labour Party thought that she was useless and she didn't stand again. Since the May election Cllr Margy Newens has been assisting us with a current problem that we have with our refuse collectors, and I am glad that I voted for her.

[Penguin68]

It is worthwhile noting that most of the local reasons to contact local councillors will never be covered by a manifesto commitment, being far too granular, and thus that there are few reasons for councillors to turn-back or ignore issues because they would require the councillor to act against a manifesto commitment. However some Labour councillors appear loath (anecdotally) to lobby against the non-manifesto decisions of council (by which I mean Labour) committees or the actions of Council officials. Mind you, it takes courage to do so. I cannot point to any incidences of that in my own ward, I have to say, before I am asked for examples. Indeed, if this has never happened I would be happy to stand corrected, but I have heard this from third parties.

[cella]

I think one of the original points I was making Penguin was that they are elected on a broad manifesto and of course will assist their constituents but cannot be expected to become embroiled in the minutiae of some things just because they are an elected councillor - that isn't the role.