One Dulwich have met with Cllr McAsh

[exdulwicher]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Perhaps some of the posters on this forum don't live in Dulwich/Southwark and didn't get the "A vote for Labour is a vote against the Tories" leaflets which made it anything but local issues....

 

They never mentioned LTNs in any of their materials. Why? Because they are politicians and they knew they could not raise the issue...it was swept quietly under the carpet. Anyone who thinks otherwise is politically niave. Why on earth would any politician raise any issue that might be a local hot potato, they aren't stupid.

I half agree with you - I don't think for a moment it was all about LTNs at all, there'll have been a while host of issues in there (very probably *including* LTNs). My point is more that OD and the like we're spinning it as very much all about the LTNs until the results were announced.

As to why there was nothing about it in the manifesto - they were already in place and Labour had no plans to remove them. What more is there to say in a manifesto? It should be all about the things you're promising if elected.

What can't be denied though is that standing solely on a platform of removing the LTNs is not a vote winner. The two Tories in Dulwich Village ward got a fraction over 1000 votes each. 

Maybe some of One Dulwich's claimed "over 2000 supporters" don't live in Dulwich/Southwark and weren't able to vote? Surely not, that'd be hypocritical...

[Rockets]

Some of OD's supporters don't live in Dulwich but the majority do (you can see it on their map).

 

I agree on the one issue manifesto but the biggest issue for the Tories and Lib Dems was they split the vote and if they had been smart one of them would have stood down and then the other might have got traction on the basis of LTNs.

 

Labour's election machine (at all levels) learned some painful lessons in 2019 so are applying that sensibly. They are pretty much the only party now that can call on swathes of activists to go door knocking. 

[first mate]

Can I just point out that Cllrs Williams and McAsh have made a big deal about how being voted in mandated LTNs and CPZ because local residents had expressed their support on the doorstep for those measures. It is they who have spun their success at the local elections as evidence of a vote in favour. So presumably you also disagree with them?

And no, as I have also said, no vote at that time could ever just be about LTNs. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

Can I just point out that Cllrs Williams and McAsh have made a big deal about how being voted in mandated LTNs and CPZ because local residents had expressed their support on the doorstep for those measures. It is they who have spun their success at the local elections as evidence of a vote in favour. So presumably you also disagree with them?

And no, as I have also said, no vote at that time could ever just be about LTNs. 

Was this when they were targeting "weak Labour voters" they got from their database....?

[first mate]

Rocks, it was at the scrutiny session when Williams went off at Clive Rates and then at the Assembly when McAsh spoke, although the sound was so appalling you could only hear the odd sentence.

[Rockets]

Did they really say they had a mandate based on verbal feedback on door-knocking sessions - surely they weren't that stupid? Ha ha.. is that the new bar for council consultations - verbal feedback based on verbal feedback from councillors with a vested interest knocming on the doors of "weak Labour" voters....;-)

 

In the words of Cllr Rose....thats definitely not a, stop mansplaining, referendum....! ;-)*

 

*;-) added for the benefit of those who have had a sense of humour by-pass. Some words added for humorous purposes that weren't uttered by Cllr Rose...in tne same sentence.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 hours ago, first mate said:

The fact remains, you cannot claim a massive mandate for something that was not mentioned in the manifesto.

Again, YouGov poll found positive views on LTNs are three times higher than negative ones. Post the local elections, you can't possibly argue that there is no mandate for the local LTN either. Although there are a handful of very noisy people who oppose any measures that seek to reduce car use, they do not make up the majority.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Metallic]

What rubbish.  Inertia and a very hard knocking up of real Labour supporters.

[first mate]

EA,

How an you possibly know a majority of ED are in favour of LTNs, unless you follow the SL line that the 2022 election result was a vote in favour, even though neither LTNs or borough-wide CPZ were mentioned in the manifesto?

I and others on here, are interested in the local picture. Sadiq Kahn expressed a view that not all LTNs work equally well. What is your evidence that a majority of ED residents support local LTNs and imposition of borough-wide CPZ?

[mr.chicken]

2 minutes ago, first mate said:

How an you possibly know a majority of ED are in favour of LTNs,

How can you possibly know they are not?

You are acting as if your view is some sort of null hypothesis and is true by default until everyone else proves beyond unreasonable doubt that the opposite is true. You have no evidence that the majority are not in favour of the LTN.

 

 

[Penguin68]

18 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

How can you possibly know they are not?

Because the few actual polls, not clearly conducted by a 'respectable' and independent polling organisation of residents in the Dulwich (specifically) LTN roads and the adjacent (over-spill) roads have indicated a majority, even amongst LTN road residents, against them. The huge dismay of locals against the most recent (Townley Road) proposals (causing them to be withdrawn) is a good indicator of their local (lack-of) popularity. These locals, remember, are very adjacent to the existing Dulwich LTNs so clearly can be reasonably informed about their impact.

More general (non-Dulwich) polls about LTNs in general (and thus probably more about the stated intent of them than their specific actualisations) have indeed broadly supported them, and indeed their intent is probably admirable. It is how they are implemented and what the knock-ons are of their implementation on adjacent roads and communities which is key. Other cities however (e.g. Oxford) have been very (and indeed violently, at least against street furniture) opposed to LTNs.

[first mate]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

How can you possibly know they are not?

You are acting as if your view is some sort of null hypothesis and is true by default until everyone else proves beyond unreasonable doubt that the opposite is true. You have no evidence that the majority are not in favour of the LTN.

 

 

How does one "act as if your view is some sort of null hypothesis". What gobbledegook. Hilarious. 

The flaw in your argument is that it is Southwark Labour cllrs who have claimed the election result showed a majority of residents were in favour of LTNs and CPZ. I have always said many are against, but numbers for and against locally would only really become more clear if a properly designed, transparent consultation is held, with the option to state you don't want either.

 

[Rockets]

5 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

How can you possibly know they are not?

You are acting as if your view is some sort of null hypothesis and is true by default until everyone else proves beyond unreasonable doubt that the opposite is true. You have no evidence that the majority are not in favour of the LTN.

 

 

On my street, which is one that benefits from the LTNs most of the people I speak to are anti- them.

 

Mr Chicken, on your first post you said you lived near Calton Avenue, do you hear that anti-sentiment from your neighbours too? I may not be far from you (if you are still there) so would be interesting to know if it is the same where you are.

 

I do think the polls conducted that showed most residents were against them (and I know it may not be totally scientific) is far more indicative of local sentiment. The council knows this and this is why their consultations now do not have the ability to register any objection to things anymore - they aren't stupid and can't have any sort of referendum as they would lose (as they did on the first CPZ "vote").

Edited August 9, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

18 hours ago, Rockets said:

Mr Chicken, on your first post you said you lived near Calton Avenue, do you hear that anti-sentiment from your neighbours too?

I am near there. My road is not especially affected either way since it was never a particularly good really a cut through. The roads nearby have got quieter and so less polluted.

The reception is mixed. If you take the obvious public response, then the reception looks strongly, uniformly against.

Due to the strident stance of the lobby organisations (One Dulwich dn't mince their words...) and aggressive local response, and the strong anti-LTN actions of some of the locals (engine oil in the planters, smashing the planters, that kind of thing not to mention lots of strong words from people you need to live next to), no one has been prepared to say they are for them publicly. I do know a few of my neighbours who are strongly for the LTNs and we only found out after carefully sounding each other out.

Though given I've seen my neighbours getting out of their car in the park to take their dog for a walk, I'm not especially sympathetic to the point that they want driving to be easier.

ETA: if no one tells you they like LTNs it could be no one does or it could be that you're not talking to people who do or it could also be that people don't feel comfortable telling you. I know from experience the latter exist. And I'm one of them.

Edited August 10, 2023 by mr.chicken

[Spartacus]

You raise an important point Mr C

Without a proper fair consultation (are you in favour yes or no)  tied down to local people and businesses only, we and the council are not able to show support or opposition either way. 

Sadly this isn't happening and the council are trying to force through support by removing the option to object. 

Bit of a poor show, what ! 

[Earl Aelfheah]

We might just have to rely on a system of representative democracy.

[first mate]

Representative of what or who? SL campaigned on a mandate which did not mention anything about LTNs or borough wide CPZ. My ( not sure if yours) local councillor made promises in regard to the latter which he has ripped up and consigned to the bin. No democratic process there.

Edited August 17, 2023 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

We vote councillors in to make decisions on matters of local policy. If you don't like how they run things, or what they do, you can vote them out at the next opportunity. That is how representative democracy works. Do you want to hold a referendum on every council policy or decision? 

[march46]

Exactly. A consultation is not a referendum, nor is it a vote.

[Rockets]

Earl - you are right but can you show me where any local councillor/Southwark Labour mentioned the CPZs/LTNs in their manifesto - they seemed to go out of their way to not mention them? How robust is your representative democracy argument when councillors are not clear on what people are voting for? Or is that just politics?

Is it not surprising that so soon after winning the local elections the council are imposing something that impacts every single person in the affected wards yet this was not mentioned at all? Do you not think something so impactful should have been declared? Why do you think they did not mention it - the answer to this question is the reason you should be concerned.

 

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

LTNs in their manifesto

The LTNs were already in place at the time of the election.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

 How robust is your representative democracy argument when councillors are not clear on what people are voting for?

https://www.southwarklabour.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Southwark-Labour-Manifesto-2022.pdf

Page 17.

34, 35, 36 and 39 are all about reducing car usage, 36 especially at a large scale. What did you think they were going to do? Asking nicely doesn't work.

Ball's in your court, @Rockets, how do you think they should implement 34, 35 and 36, in a way that's something they can (a) legally do and (b) will actually have an effect.

Edited August 18, 2023 by mr.chicken

[Rockets]

Thanks for posting that Mr Chicken - I have shared it with everyone so they can see for themselves.

Firstly, can you tell me where it mentions borough wide CPZs - maybe you were able to decipher that from the manifesto - perhaps as well as your skills as an engineer you have mastered mind-reading too!? 😉 Maybe omitting CPZs was an oversight on the part of the council - to be fair to them there have been quite a lot of oversights in relation to active travel proposals and execution over the last few years? 

Also, notice point 35 - two things to note:

• Firstly it says "work with communities". How quickly that turned into "we will tell you what we are doing and you will have no say in whether we do it or not". The current CPZ consultation is not working with communities it's telling the communities what the council is going to do whether they like it or not.
• Secondly, note the "Prioritising areas with high health inequalities and low car ownership first". That changed quickly as well didn't it as they are actually targeting the areas with the highest car ownership and are very vocal in why they are doing that because of "justice" apparently......?

 

 

 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Thanks for posting that Mr Chicken - I have shared it with everyone so they can see for themselves 😉

You're a legend. Don't ever change 😆

Does really bother you that you were wrong about Hammersmith Bridge though huh? You keep obliquely harking back to it when though the topic is  long past.

Otherwise... The council said they'd tackle problems and they are. Your main objection are really that they are tackling them out of order and you don't think the consultation is good enough.

 

That's a lot less dramatic than the end of democracy, really.

 

 

 

[first mate]

Eh, what. MR C, that is really taking thread sabotage to its limits. At least focus on what Rockets said.

You say " the council said they'd tackle problems and they are". That is so vague it is worthless.

Specifically, the council have no mandate for borough wide CPZ, it was not mentioned. How can a democracy work if voters don't know what they are voting for? What was mandated was improvement in bus and train networks? 

My local councillor made very clear promises and statements about CPZ which he has reneged on.

A consultation that gives no option to reject the proposals is a joke and flies in the face of the statement that the council want to work with communities.

Edited August 18, 2023 by first mate

[mr.chicken]

Woah there @first mate stop sabotaging the thread. You're talking about the same topic I am, so that must be sabotage, well according you you.

The council listed problems they wish to tackle, and the CPZ is a valid step towards solving the problems, one that's well established and familiar to anyone who knows the first thing about urban planning. It's clear from the LTN that our council is prepared to take bold steps.

If the council listed all the solutions then they would still get nit picked to death because they didn't list enough detail. In practice enforcing solutions at the ballot box isa bad idea. Let's say they did list the CPZ and then found it didn't work: they'd be forced to keep it. Is that what you want?

Add it is the council is doing a huge number of things that aren't in the manifesto because there's just a colossal amount of business they need to do. You don't seem to mind not having a 20,000 page manifesto and a yearly referendum on bin collection days.

As for buses: the CPZ is expected to reduce car journeys. That will help congestion which will improve things for bus routes.

 

As for your councillor, I've been lied to directly before by candidates and it is incredibly galling if one acts in the lies. Nonetheless the council cannot alter policy just because of that.

 

But anyway, since you don't like the CPZ what would you find acceptable that is (a) something the council can do and (b) stands a chance of achieving more than nothing.

The council promised action, so it would be undemocratic for them to do nothing. So what then?