"Vote Them Out May 2022" flyer

[KidKruger]

IS there a party / individual standing on a ban LTNs ticket ?

[Rockets]

Labour will retain control of Southwark but I wouldn't want to be in Cllr WIlliams' shoes if I presided over a collapse of the Southwark red wall. It's clear the Lib Dems smell blood and they could easily get enough seats to make things more uncomfortable for Labour moving forward.

Keir Starmer has put a lot of focus on these local elections in May and, given the utter contempt for the Tories it will not be a good look if Labour loses share in any traditional stronghold areas - those local results dictate the national agenda. And given Southwark Labour's hard-left leaning tendencies a few key seats lost may force Labour HQ to take a closer look at what's going on. Party infighting has always been the Achilles heal for Labour and we may be about to see more of it break out if the results in May don't go well.

[DuncanW]

I think the full candidate list will be published on 6th April.

[kissthisguy]

@Rockets I'm not sure about yr analysis. It looks like three or four long-standing (and quite well respected?) LD cllrs are standing down in the north of the borough so I'd be surprised if most effort didn't go into holding on to those seats.

Frankly the LD performance in Dulwich isn't trust or confidence-inspiring (anti LTN message sometimes, to some audiences, but no mention of that in their manifesto), which will be further compounded if they don't put in a serious candidate in ED, where I suspect they could have won a seat or two. The calculation to put all their eggs in DV is weird. A real gamble compared with apparently fielding and then not fielding James Barber (whatever your politics a bit of a class act) in ED. I don't get the sense of them responding to blood in the water, more chaos in their political calculations.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Labour will retain control of Southwark but I

> wouldn't want to be in Cllr WIlliams' shoes if I

> presided over a collapse of the Southwark red

> wall. It's clear the Lib Dems smell blood and they

> could easily get enough seats to make things more

> uncomfortable for Labour moving forward.

>

> Keir Starmer has put a lot of focus on these local

> elections in May and, given the utter contempt for

> the Tories it will not be a good look if Labour

> loses share in any traditional stronghold areas -

> those local results dictate the national agenda.

> And given Southwark Labour's hard-left leaning

> tendencies a few key seats lost may force Labour

> HQ to take a closer look at what's going on. Party

> infighting has always been the Achilles heal for

> Labour and we may be about to see more of it break

> out if the results in May don't go well.

[sanda]

Still no message from Tristan or Clive to disassociate the *party* from this VoteThemOut facade. Whatever party you are in, this is shoddy negative campaigning that is so clearly biased towards the conservative candidates.

It is all very dishonest and really what sums up the modern Conservative party. I the whole party has had a blood transfusion of UKIP and Brexit types, and all the decent conservatives have quit or been thrown out by the party for opposing Brexit.

It would be a very sad indictment of the residents of Dulwich Village Ward (with the highest car ownership in the borough) if they somehow overlook all of the problems in the Conservative party and vote for a single issue candidate from the shady Dulwich Alliance/One Dulwich group. Nothing positive will be achieved for Dulwich Village as a result of them being elected. It will be like watching Nigel Farage sitting in the European Parliament, an irritant at best, and at worst just completely marginalised by the Lib Dems and Labour and an embarrassment to the ward.

Dulwich Village always seems out of touch with the rest of the borough. This was very noticeable when I watched Clive Rates speak at the council meeting and he wanted more and more time to talk about driving around Dulwich. It was embarrassing to watch. He had to be shutdown so the meeting could finally move on and talk about some really impactful problems with housing in much more deprived wards in the borough. And yet One Dulwich complained about not getting enough time - that was when their campaign really showed me who they really were. And VoteThemOut just looks like more of the same.

[kissthisguy]

@sanda not sure quite what your beef is with the two Dulwich candidates. But on the face of it, all you seem to have is smear and (evidenceless) assertions about VTOM being a Tory plot, which makes no sense when they've been making supportive noises about the LDs in ED. Isn't the simplest explanation the most likely one - that the Dulwich LTN is a divisive issue, and a group of people (perhaps members of parties, perhaps none, *none* of us know) have come together to campaign against the incumbent party who implemented the schemes?

[sanda]

Between the Dulwich Alliance, One Dulwich and Vote them out, can you point to any transparency about what these groups are? This isn?t about conspiracy but about transparency. Maybe I?m just too old now and I shouldn?t be expecting politicians to be honest in their campaign associations.

As for Labour being behind these schemes, these are funded by the Conservative Government. If they get ripped out, the conservative government cuts the funding for those councils, including their own Conservative councils:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/27/get-on-your-bike-not-if-some-tory-councils-have-their-way

So some transparency in who is behind all of these shadowy groups would help everyone to vote for the right candidates according to their beliefs. As it stands, it just feels like the electorate are being conned on all sides. That isn?t good for democracy.

[Spartacus]

Sandra, you forgot to add groups like Clean Air Dulwich or Friends of Dulwich Square to your list of groups that aren't transparent.

It seems to me that locals who want to be vocal on matters regardless of side should be either

A) all made to list their names

Or

B) all allowed to be anonymous

Claiming that one group is "shadowy" for protecting their identity is also viewing the oppression in the same light

It has to be one rule for all.

[kissthisguy]

@sanda "shadowy groups". Honestly. More one-sided finger pointing and innuendo. Are they only shadowy when you disagree with them but not when you do? I don't recall you ever having asked who is behind Clean Air Dulwich, for example, which also characterises itself rather loosely as a "a group of local parents". You rather reveal your hand when you insist on transparency from only one side.

As ever, if you want to figure out who to vote for, look at what's in the party's manifesto, check out their local record, what they say on the doorstep, who is standing and their links to the community. If you have an interest in a specific agenda be it cycling, air quality or business viability, check out campaigning groups for that. Then use your judgement.

[kissthisguy]

Sorry @spartacus I didn't see your post, hence making one of the same arguments. Agree with your point about consistency.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Sandra, you forgot to add groups like Clean Air

> Dulwich or Friends of Dulwich Square to your list

> of groups that aren't transparent.

>

> It seems to me that locals who want to be vocal on

> matters regardless of side should be either

> A) all made to list their names

> Or

> B) all allowed to be anonymous

>

> Claiming that one group is "shadowy" for

> protecting their identity is also viewing the

> oppression in the same light

>

> It has to be one rule for all.

[sanda]

None of those groups you mention are sending me election literature telling me who to vote for or who not to vote for. That is the difference. And the fact you can?t see that is what is really concerning about what is happening to our democracy.

[Spartacus]

sanda Wrote:

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

> None of those groups you mention are sending me

> election literature telling me who to vote for or

> who not to vote for. That is the difference. And

> the fact you can?t see that is what is really

> concerning about what is happening to our

> democracy.

Neither has Dulwich Alliance or One Dulwich yet you still mentioned them so you are coming at this from one side and trying to trash talk the other

Play fair Sandra (or are you really Karen from Facebook?) Or don't play at all

Oh and from what I saw of the Vote Them Out nonsense is that it's not election literature but a group of residences personal opinion as it hadn't been endorsed by any party but I could be wrong

[kissthisguy]

Not a leaflet, but Clean Air Dulwich broadcasting a partisan message in the public square (as it were) that is clearly political in the run up to an election? Yes.

sanda Wrote:

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

> None of those groups you mention are sending me

> election literature telling me who to vote for or

> who not to vote for. That is the difference. And

> the fact you can?t see that is what is really

> concerning about what is happening to our

> democracy.

[Spartacus]

Ktg love the image of Tristan and Clive they used

The boards around their necks are just missing

"HMP Brixton" and numbers to paint them as the true criminais they are for wanting to reverse parking charges in parks...

Oh the joys of non official groups trying to play politics

[kissthisguy]

Lol. And I hear the rotters want to use fines from the cameras to fund a zero emissions electric community bus.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Ktg love the image of Tristan and Clive they used

>

>

> The boards around their necks are just missing

> "HMP Brixton" and numbers to paint them as the

> true criminais they are for wanting to reverse

> parking charges in parks...

>

> Oh the joys of non official groups trying to play

> politics

[Spartacus]

They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling pro LTN groups kids

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Looking at Linked In, TH qualified 18 months ago

> and is in the private client department of a city

> law firm. He?s probably is having a fair amount of

> pro bono work given to him, based on my experience

> - partners in loads of other departments looking

> for free help for charities that they and their

> clients are involved in ?as a favour?. Junior

> lawyers always end up doing this stuff!

>

> But yep, he?s probably giving some tax planning

> advice to some rich people. And charities by the

> look of it. Hardly sinister.

Macfarlanes is well-known in the biz for having a "high net worth individual" practice with a significant oligarch slant. That's who needs cross-border tax and estate planning. The firm is not paying associates (?100,000+ a year for newly-qualified 23 yo ffs!) to spend their time doing pro bono work for charities. I'm not criticising the Tory candidate for doing that kind of work (I don't know if what I do makes the world a better place...), but let's not create fairy stories about it.

https://www.thelawyer.com/macfarlanes/

[kissthisguy]

Having looked up TH's blurb, https://www.macfarlanes.com/who-we-are/people/honeyborne-tristan/ is private client chancery work (estates, wills, inheritance planning etc) any better or worse than being an ex sugar trader (Cllr Newens)? It's all so subjective. Unless there's something you can point to that is actually unlawful or unethical, this line of attack just feels like smear and innuendo.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> legalalien Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Looking at Linked In, TH qualified 18 months

> ago

> > and is in the private client department of a

> city

> > law firm. He?s probably is having a fair amount

> of

> > pro bono work given to him, based on my

> experience

> > - partners in loads of other departments

> looking

> > for free help for charities that they and their

> > clients are involved in ?as a favour?. Junior

> > lawyers always end up doing this stuff!

> >

> > But yep, he?s probably giving some tax planning

> > advice to some rich people. And charities by

> the

> > look of it. Hardly sinister.

>

> Macfarlanes is well-known in the biz for having a

> "high net worth individual" practice with a

> significant oligarch slant. That's who needs

> cross-border tax and estate planning. The firm is

> not paying associates (?100,000+ a year for

> newly-qualified 23 yo ffs!) to spend their time

> doing pro bono work for charities. I'm not

> criticising the Tory candidate for doing that kind

> of work (I don't know if what I do makes the world

> a better place...), but let's not create fairy

> stories about it.

>

> https://www.thelawyer.com/macfarlanes/

[CPR Dave]

I guess Sandra, hill Billy etc are very worried that this Vote them Out campaign is going to work.

If they had anything convincing or positive to say about their own candidates they would be doing so instead of going round making disingenuous smears.

[sanda]

I don?t have my ?own candidates?. I was just asking for transparency and honesty from those candidates who are standing.

The rather feeble denial from Tristan H makes me still suspect that the VoteThemOut group is just a front for the conservatives. It would be easy for Tristan to deny any association but even he knows that it is hard to do that without lying. And I suspect he cares enough about that as a solicitor, unlike many in his party who seem very willing to lie.

So this thread is about negative campaigning from a nameless group like something out of the Brexit playbook. We still don?t know who they are and we still don?t have local candidates properly denying involvement.

[DuncanW]

KTG = as with ED26's robust defence of Mr Honeyborne against non-existent claims of his work being sinister or nefarious - as far as I am aware, nobody has claimed that anything about his work is unethical or unlawful. Please forgive me if I have missed it but I searched those words and you seem to be the first to use them.

I'm sure this is some recognised type of logical fallacy. I'm sure TH, with his PPE degree from Magdalen would be able to tell you which one... :)

[legalalien]

Is it just me or do others sometimes wonder whether others on this and similar threads are actually people from various political parties who are well aware who each other are irl?

On the TH thing I feel like the casual references to ?tax avoidance?, ?oligarchs?, salary levels etc are trying to paint a picture (surprised someone hasn?t mentioned the reference to Russian language skills that appears on Linked In given the tone). I only picked up on the pro bono thing because someone raised it flippantly - and it reality junior lawyers do get loads of this stuff dumped in them in addition to their billable workload.

I really don?t miss a life denominated in six minute units.

[Spartacus]

sanda Wrote:

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

>

> So this thread is about negative campaigning from

> a nameless group like something out of the Brexit

> playbook. We still don?t know who they are and we

> still don?t have local candidates properly denying

> involvement.

So you don't see the irony that the pro ltn groups aren't transparent and they and Labour Councillors block responses on social media unless they follow you.

As I said before it's one rule for all and everyone needs to be transparent, not just the groups and candidates you dislike.

Or do you disagree ?

[kissthisguy]

That's right @legalalien it's trying to paint a negative-by-association picture of a candidate. Pure innuendo. Again, if people were trying to do the same to Cllr Newens and her sugar trading past, it would not be on.

@legalalien sadly I don't know anyone on this tread in irl, to my knowledge. Though you and Spartacus seem like fun!

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Is it just me or do others sometimes wonder

> whether others on this and similar threads are

> actually people from various political parties who

> are well aware who each other are irl?

>

> On the TH thing I feel like the casual references

> to ?tax avoidance?, ?oligarchs?, salary levels etc

> are trying to paint a picture (surprised someone

> hasn?t mentioned the reference to Russian language

> skills that appears on Linked In given the tone).

> I only picked up on the pro bono thing because

> someone raised it flippantly - and it reality

> junior lawyers do get loads of this stuff dumped

> in them in addition to their billable workload.

>

> I really don?t miss a life denominated in six

> minute units.

[eastdulwichrover]

-- moved topic --