One Dulwich have met with Cllr McAsh

[first mate]

Chicken. Your rather long and convoluted answer reads like another attempt to distract and obfuscate.

Salient points:
borough wide CPZ is a really big deal. You'd have thought SL would mention such a big move in their manifesto at least once, just so voters could understand major policies they'd be voting for?

SL maintain this move is mandated via doorstep chats. All very opaque.

On the other hand, improvements to rail and bus networks were trumpeted and yet what has been done? Zilch. Odd that, don't you think?

My local Councillor, Mr McAsh, is also leading borough policy on CPZ. He has totally reneged on promises and statements he made in regard to CPZ.  

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

Thank you for acknowledging my legendary status.....;-)

I must have missed your response on where the council mentions borough-wide CPZs in their manifesto - have you found it yet?

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

On the other hand, improvements to rail and bus networks were trumpeted and yet what has been done? Zilch. Odd that, don't you think?

The closest that manifesto gets to improvement in public transport is a promise to work with TFL to upgrade local stations....that'll help the local PTAL scores no-end....

[mr.chicken]

18 minutes ago, first mate said:

 

@first mate. If I give short answers you accuse me of not answering every point. If I give a long answer you sneer because it's long. If it's too nuanced for you to follow you complain it's "convoluted".

It's almost like you are arguing in bad faith.

You are complaining that the council hasn't done anything about buses. The CPZ will reduce congestion and help buses.

It's a simple point, but you think it is convoluted. That's more of a you problem than a me problem 😉

 

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken - are you expecting CPZs to mean thousands of Dulwich resident jettison cars, thereby reducing congestion? If you are you really need to stop drinking the council Kool-Aid...;-) Can you also enlighten us as to how CPZs reduce through-traffic?

 

Still waiting to find out if you found the reference of the borough-wide CPZ in the Labour manifesto.....

[mr.chicken]

@Rockets still waiting for you to say what would be an acceptable way to you for the council to meet their manifesto promises.

 

[Rockets]

Well that's a bit of a challenge isn't it because their manifesto (as you have shown) is so loosely worded and lacking any specific detail it's difficult to determine what they are actually trying to achieve and how. The lack of any reference to CPZs means in their manifesto probably suggests that that idea must have suddenly come to them after the election so, like an untethered main sail, they seem flap around in the breeze and are a bit rudderless when it comes to specific ideas!! 😉 

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Mr Chicken - are you expecting CPZs to mean thousands of Dulwich resident jettison cars, thereby reducing congestion? If you are you really need to stop drinking the council Kool-Aid...;-) Can you also enlighten us as to how CPZs reduce through-traffic?

Would you like a personal one?

Me. Our car (well OK, it's MY car but whatever) is going. Several reasons. 
1) It's not ULEZ compliant. It's still a great car, reliable, economical and it'll go for years yet but it's not compliant. Currently, to avoid charges, it's parked on a friend's driveway just outside the S. Circular. We rarely use it anyway but occasionally it's been handy to have, however we also don't want to be paying £12.50 every time it moves so that's the current situation - we walk or ride out to it and drive off outside London on the rare occasions it's needed. Friend doesn't own a car (elderly, no longer drives, has lived in the house for many years) so it's not an issue that there's a car on their driveway. However, having it out there, not immediately available also means we can't "just jump in the car" to go somewhere so we actually think - can we do this without a car? Almost always, the answer is yes.
2) further ULEZ expansion means that (1) will no longer be practical as of next month.
3) we don't have / can't have a driveway (front garden not big enough plus cost)
4) with the CPZ coming in as well, we'd be paying for parking AND to drive it. 
5) can't really justify the cost of a replacement compliant car given how rarely it gets used. It'd be cheaper to hire a car for longer journeys or to use ZipCar locally.

So there you are - you've had a go at me and others on here before for owning / using  a car while also being pro-car reduction methods so there's a personal one for you. Anecdote of one admittedly but that's how it's worked. To be fair we rarely drove anyway so the LTN had little effect - walking / cycling / PT was the default way of getting around, the car was only ever for longer or more loaded journeys. The first ULEZ expansion out to the N and S Circ presented a problem hence the friend's driveway solution but it virtually stopped us driving within S. Circ overnight unless there really was absolutely no other option. Traffic reduction right there. And now a combination of ULEZ expansion AND the promise of a CPZ - car gone.

What it also shows is how these solutions work together, it's not just having an LTN, it's not just putting in a CPZ, it's everything working together over a period of time.

Hope that helps!

Edited August 18, 2023 by exdulwicher

[first mate]

12 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

@Rockets still waiting for you to say what would be an acceptable way to you for the council to meet their manifesto promises.

 

Still waiting to hear where borough- wide CPZ and LTNs were mentioned in the last manifesto? These were not measures that were mandated. Their imposition is not democratic. The effects of the local LTNs are inequitable- Cllr McAsh has yet to respond to the request to investigate local data, although he has promised he will.

Edited August 19, 2023 by first mate

[mr.chicken]

@first mate still waiting to hear from you abut why you think preexisting things need to be in the manifesto?

There's nothing in there about rubbish collection and street trees. Oe Noes!!!11! they weren't mentioned in the manifesto! The council must stop because of democracy!

 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

The effects of the local LTNs are inequitable

Ehhh, made up facts are't really adding anything ot the debate 😉

[Spartacus]

14 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

@first mate still waiting to hear from you abut why you think preexisting things need to be in the manifesto?

There's nothing in there about rubbish collection and street trees. Oe Noes!!!11! they weren't mentioned in the manifesto! The council must stop because of democracy!

Are you trying to claim that a Borough wide CPZ was preexisting as a statutory requirement mandated by government so it doesn't need to be mention because rubbish collect, which is a statutory requirement of running a local government is also not mentioned? 

If so, please show us where it is heralded as a statutory obligation on the council prior to the local election.

Come now, thats a clear case of apples and pears as a comparison there Mr c 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Spartacus

[Rockets]

I am not sure Mr Chicken knows the point they are trying to make on rubbish collection - unless he knows that the council plan to start charging people more for that now too....perhaps he has inside knowledge of "all the council's plans for charging for things not mentioned/accidentally omitted in their manifesto"...maybe because Dulwich residents eat more over-priced artisan products from local organic suppliers than other Southwark residents then they need to put a "justice tax" on that now too!

Edited August 19, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

36 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I am not sure Mr Chicken knows the point they are trying to make on rubbish collection

The council organises rubbish collection, but it's not mentioned in their manifesto. And I certainly do pay for garden waste collection. You have not complained about that. You don't expect the council to mention things they already do in the manifesto, so we all know you didn't actually care about the lack of it in the manifesto 😉

 

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Are you trying to claim[...]

Nope.

If you're going to ask rhetorical questions, try not to make them quite so daft. Next!

 

[Spartacus]

Mr c 

You're the one who's asking daft questions and then trying to make out people are stupid when they call you out on them.

Shame on you, but your technique is so transparent.

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

You're the one who's asking daft questions

Yes asking the likes of you for evidence (or to read existing evidence) is a daft question. You got me there, and I should really know better. 😉

Oh other daft questions which I ought to stop asking because no answers will ever be forthcoming: do you believe the status quo is optimal or is there an effective intervention you would find acceptable?

As for making people look stupid: it's something I'm trying not to do but some people are making it awfully difficult.

 

 

[exdulwicher]

9 hours ago, first mate said:

Still waiting to hear where borough- wide CPZ and LTNs were mentioned in the last manifesto? These were not measures that were mandated. 

They're not mentioned because they don't have to be. The various political parties running for election (council or Government level) are not obliged to spell out every last detail of every promise in a manifesto - they put it there in the broad brush strokes, people vote them in or out accordingly and then the details come through:

"In our manifesto, we promised [thing], now let's discuss how to do that, the fine details, the costs, the logistics etc"

That's when you work it up into more detail, consult on it (if required - not everything requires a consultation) and [thing] happens. Within the manifesto are references to safer streets, traffic reduction, climate emergency; there's this sentence (page 17)
We will encourage people to switch to less polluting cars, with lower parking fees for zero emissions and smaller vehicles across the whole borough.

That doesn't exactly spell out "we will have a borough-wide CPZ" but it's a pretty strong indication that less polluting vehicles will be charged less which implies that higher polluting vehicles will be charged more which implies that at some point, all (or most) vehicles will be charged something. It's put like that because it might not be a CPZ - maybe there were plans or ambitions or ideas for borough-wide road user charging instead of parking? Maybe there was a idea to have a borough-wide congestion charge instead? They'd all be valid means of meeting that manifesto pledge. It just leaves the door open for a bit of flexibility. Labour were voted in based (presumably) on that manifesto so we have (presumably) agreed to some form of charging somewhere along the line, details TBC.

And in a way, the measures WERE mandated. There are all sorts of air pollution targets, active travel targets, modal shift targets in place. Government is providing very little direct leadership on the matter, it's more or less letting councils decide it for themselves, partly because Government knows that the councils will then take all the blame from the various anti-CPZ/ULEZ/LTN lot. But there are definitely plenty of mandates in place for it.

Edited August 19, 2023 by exdulwicher

[Spartacus]

Mr C 

Keep going, you are amusing in your failure to answer challenging questions by trying to deflect them back against the questioner, sometimes mixing up who you deflect it back towards. 🤣

You remind me of a scam Indian call I received once, my broadband router was apparently infected, and when I called him out as a scammer he responded by shouting repeatedly "No you the scammer" down the phone at me before hanging up. 

Similar to the sort of behaviour we are observing from you. 

PS are you a defence lawyer because you are defending and arguing that the council, who have been caught lying to their residents, aren't lying but elected to have misspoken.

This is the crux of the debate introducing something that they said they wouldn't and doing it without a consultation. 

Raises questions concering are the council officers working for us or themselves? 

 

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

The council organises rubbish collection, but it's not mentioned in their manifesto. And I certainly do pay for garden waste collection. You have not complained about that. You don't expect the council to mention things they already do in the manifesto, so we all know you didn't actually care about the lack of it in the manifesto 😉

 

Nope.

If you're going to ask rhetorical questions, try not to make them quite so daft. Next!

 

Mr Chicken you're starting to make yourself look a bit like a male chicken with all this nonsensical diatribe comparing imposing CPZs on people with mentioning bin collections.

[mr.chicken]

38 minutes ago, Rockets said:

CPZs

Stop pretending you weren't also complaining about the LTN which we should note already exists. No one here has forgotten you complaining that an already existing thing was not on the manifesto except maybe you and@Spartacus 😉 . Impressive really that you've forgotten what you wrote only days ago at most.

 

[first mate]

Ex Dulwicher said: "They're not mentioned because they don't have to be. The various political parties running for election (council or Government level) are not obliged to spell out every last detail of every promise in a manifesto - they put it there in the broad brush strokes, people vote them in or out accordingly and then the details come through:"

Come on Ex, borough wide CPZ is a major move, there were no broad brush strokes, let alone any detail. Yet they did mention working with TFL to improve trains- with little if anything to show, as yet. 

[Spartacus]

Another attempt by chicken to bounce the post back using "no you the scammer" type response.

You are predictable and boring Mr C ! 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Spartacus

[first mate]

Mr Chicken said: "There's nothing in there about rubbish collection and street trees. Oe Noes!!!11! they weren't mentioned in the manifesto! The council must stop because of democracy!

Ooooh, now unless we are all missing something awfully, awfully clever, I do believe borough wide bin collections have existed for many years. What a pointless riposte. Full of sound and fury.

[exdulwicher]

41 minutes ago, first mate said:

Come on Ex, borough wide CPZ is a major move, there were no broad brush strokes, let alone any detail. Yet they did mention working with TFL to improve trains- with little if anything to show, as yet. 

It's right there in black and white - the council will look at tiered charges to favour smaller / less polluting vehicles. How that will be done is not spelled out (road user charges, parking charges??) but it's a clear indication of intent.

What do you want in terms of trains? Again, that's a fairly broad statement, no detail in there. Since the council have almost no actual say in trains (that's the responsibility of Network Rail, DfT, Train Operating Companies and, on some lines, TfL), the statement "working with TfL to improve trains" could be anything - asking for more trains, more reliable trains, better station facilities/access, improved punctuality... Whole host of things, most of which goes on in the background as part of general council business and most of which - with trains anyway - takes years to come to fruition and relies on funding from DfT, the work being scheduled by Network Rail and TOCs agreeing to it all. Put it this way - you're not going to have a council election one week and 10 brand new trains per hour the week after!

I note by the way that the Tory manifesto for the May 2022 council elections stood at a whole 7 pages, less than a quarter of the Labour one and is mostly aimed at slagging off Labour, it gives zero indication of how any of their pledges are to be met or any detail behind them... No wonder they got a kicking... 🤷‍♂️

Edited August 19, 2023 by exdulwicher

[first mate]

Ex said: "It's right there in black and white - the council will look at tiered charges to favour smaller / less polluting vehicles. How that will be done is not spelled out (road user charges, parking charges??) but it's a clear indication of intent."

"Looking at" is not the same as imposition. The intentions are very far from clear and as I think you very well know are deliberately as vague as possible. Given the additional insult of the picture of a gurning James McAsh, it also reeks of dishonesty.

How easy it would have been to state something like "we will pursue imposition of a borough wide CPZ and extend low traffic neighbourhoods which, together with ULEZ, will reduce car use etc...

You are really not persuading me or other sceptical posters that the intention is clear.

Given their apparent inability to really do much about trains and buses why then was that mentioned but no the above? Just admit it, they did not want to go there.

Edited August 19, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

t's right there in black and white - the council will look at tiered charges to favour smaller / less polluting vehicles. How that will be done is not spelled out (road user charges, parking charges??) but it's a clear indication of intent.

The reference I can find says: We will encourage people to switch to less polluting cars with lower parking fees for zero emissions and smaller vehicles across the whole borough.

 

The phrasing of that suggests lowering existing parking fees and If that is supposed to be where we are supposed to have deciphered that CPZs are coming then wow......the deception intent is very real and it is laughable that people are defending that.

 

When challenged it is interesting the council has not pointed to the manifesto but some research they did years ago to claim they have a mandate for CPZs - they know they are on dodgy groumd. That should speak volumes and this is exactly the lack of robustness that the judge in the ULEZ case was very critical of.

 

Whilst they try to hide their intent the Tories have been dropping leaflets through Dulwich doors trying to focus people's attention onto it and create an Achilles Heal for Labour under the title "Our council needs to respect residents" and I very much expect to see something similar from the Lib Dems.

[mr.chicken]

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

Whilst they try to hide their intent the Tories have been dropping leaflets through Dulwich doors trying to focus people's attention onto it and create an Achilles Heal for Labour under the title "Our council needs to respect residents" and I very much expect to see something similar from the Lib Dems.

They both tried that last time and lost a load of votes.