West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

 

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

a poll (market or social research) will be conducted to ensure that the relevant population is properly sampled, so that results (within confidence limits) can be determined statistically. A consultation as undertaken by a council will be self selecting within a population and where the response numbers are low analysis may be limited, even where full demographics are collected. 

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[DulvilleRes]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

Has anyone asked who runs it yet....;-)

No need to ask, it is pretty clear who some of the people are behind it, as the organisers have actually given their names on the fundraiser. In terms of transparency in local democracy, credit to them for doing so.

This is in stark contrast to One Dulwich, where we're still waiting for some clarity on who they are, and who funds them. It is really such a simple but important couple of questions, and it is puzzling that no one who supports their stance on these threads knows, or is curious enough to ask. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 12/09/2024 at 14:22, Rockets said:

Ha ha...there we go again....everyone knows the "not a referendum" argument is just a weak smokescreen to try and spin away from the fact that residents have rejected their proposals - it's the pre-cursor for ignoring residents.

So you think a consultation is a referendum? That a few hundred people should be able to block all and any change, even if it impacts thousands of people? Even if tens of thousands may have elected the council on a promise to make positive change? 

We live in a representative democracy. Lambeth have been very clear about their policies around sustainability, transport and the environment, and stood for re-election on that platform. https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/Climate-action-goals.pdf

Edited September 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

A consultation is only not a referendum when the result goes against the people running the consultation and they need an excuse for doing what they wat rather than what the respondents to the consultation wan! Plenty of occasions where the council has lauded the results of a consultation when the result goes the way they want it to!!

 

Southwark did not mention LTNs or CPZs in ANY of their local election materials so by that measure do not have a mandate to roll them out. They were very, ahem, selective....

 

They are bending the rules and creating an uneven playing field to suit their agenda - I know it, you know it, everyone knows it - if it was something you didn't want you'd be up in arms as well as this is not democracy in action.

[malumbu]

There appears to be confusion about what a consultation is.  We are delivering a scheme.  We want your views on how nest to implement this. An interesting comparison is that all proposed new nuclear power stations received more objections than support during statutory consultation in the last 40 years or more.  All were successful in the planning application.  As said consultations are not a referendum.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Southwark did not mention LTNs or CPZs in ANY of their local election materials

🙃

#southwarkderangementsyndrome hits its peak: ranting about Southwark not mentioning CPZs in its election materials (clue: Southwark is a council, not a political party) on a thread about an LTN in Lambeth.

Edited September 13 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[alice]

Just walked through the Dulwich junction. Absolutely sickening shortsighted waste of public funds. 
 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

There appears to be confusion about what a consultation is.  We are delivering a scheme.  We want your views on how nest to implement this.

Err nope...you're the only one confused....perhaps deliberately so...

 

What is consultation?

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

#southwarkderangementsyndrome

Ha ha, the only deranged ones are the ones who think the way Southwark behaves is anything other than wholly unacceptable. Deranged, blinkered and easily led! 😉 A politician's dream.

Edited September 13 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

Lambeth have been very clear about their ambitions to shift towards more sustainable transport ("At least 85% of journeys in Lambeth are made by walking, cycling or other public transport modes by 2030"), and to reallocate kerb space away from car storage / parking. See the link I posted above to their climate action goals.

There is almost no change that could ever be made if a consultation was treated as a referendum. They are very clearly, objectively, different things. To pretend not to understand the difference demonstrates wilful ignorance.

[first mate]

I have no idea if Lambeth are mandated to make these changes; we know Southwark are not.  If not mandated via election and consultations do not count, how are the views of local residents to be factored into a democratic process?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

27 minutes ago, first mate said:

we know Southwark are not. 

Of course Southwark can't make the traffic changes that are the subject of this thread - they're in Lambeth.

[Rockets]

Maybe the council/s should make these based on referendum rules and get a definitive answer to whether they are supported or not.

 

Would those happy to repeat the "a consultation is not a referendum" support a simple one person one vote definitive consultation that the council guaranteed to action the outcome. I am presuming yes because you are so confident it is only a "small minority" who oppose the way the council is going about things and you are confident the result would go your way?

[alice]

I do not want a referendum to be the way we make decisions that’s ridiculous. We don’t have that kind of democracy. 
But I would like to say walking statistics separated from cycling as it gives an unfair bolster

[first mate]

5 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Of course Southwark can't make the traffic changes that are the subject of this thread - they're in Lambeth.

You don't say. If you read my post you will see I said I don't know if Lambeth are mandated to make the changes as per OP. I commented on Southwark in passing and then back to issue of consultations.

Didn't think you were one to get into barrel scraping point scoring DKH.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 hours ago, Rockets said:

Maybe the council/s should make these based on referendum rules and get a definitive answer to whether they are supported or not.

 

Would those happy to repeat the "a consultation is not a referendum" support a simple one person one vote definitive consultation that the council guaranteed to action the outcome. I am presuming yes because you are so confident it is only a "small minority" who oppose the way the council is going about things and you are confident the result would go your way?

The idea that we should hold referenda every time the council wants to do something is ridiculous. Google 'representative democracy' if you don't understand our system (in short, our elected representatives lead / make decisions on our behalf and if you don't like what they do, you get to vote them out). 

Re. Southwark, they've also been very clear about their ambitions to reduce car use and increase active travel for some time. They've been returned to office on that basis and are now trailing schemes which seek to deliver on their committments.  https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/reaching-net-zero/our-plan-for-net-zero

Edited Tuesday at 09:23 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The idea that we should hold referenda every time the council wants to do something is ridiculous. Google 'representative democracy' if you don't understand our system (in short, our elected representatives lead / make decisions on our behalf and if you don't like what they do, you get to vote them out). 

Re. Southwark, they've also been very clear about their ambitions to reduce car use and increase active travel https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/reaching-net-zero/our-plan-for-net-zero

Please show where in the last Southwark Labour manifesto intentions and expenditure on local LTNs were highlighted? Labour did not run on it and you know that. That is an example of how democracy is undermined.

Just to add, as I do not want to go off thread, I do not know if Lambeth Labour highlighted proposed LTNs and related changes in their manifesto? Perhaps the OP can tell us?

Edited Tuesday at 09:32 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Did you read their manifesto? It was literally called 'Greener, safer, fairer'. Page 17 'Clean air and healthy streets' talks about car free streets, and creating 'healthier, safer and greener streets for walking and cycling' ...amongst other things. 

Whilst it's true that it doesn't list every individual scheme it might seek to trial in future (which would obviously be ridiculous) - it's intention to address issues with car dominance is made quite clear. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:41 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The idea that we should hold referenda every time the council wants to do something is ridiculous. Google 'representative democracy' if you don't understand our system (in short, our elected representatives lead / make decisions on our behalf and if you don't like what they do, you get to vote them out). 

But Southwark has, repeatedly, deliberately and intentionally, ignored the views of constituents time and time again over this issue. They have deliberately bent the rules to try and get the result they want - even with this they failed to get the mandate they needed and then they fell back on the "consultations are not referendums" spin.

You're constantly telling us that it is a small, vocal minority so why not back yourself and agree to lobby to have a definitive consultation that the council agrees to action the outcome that responds to the views of the majority residents? 

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Did you read their manifesto? It was literally called 'Greener, safer, fairer'. Page 17 'Clean air and healthy streets' talks about car free streets, and creating healthier, 'safer and greener streets for walking and cycling' ...amongst other things. 

Whilst it's true that it doesn't list every individual scheme it might seek to trial in future (which would obviously be ridiculous) - it's intention to address issues with car dominance is made quite clear. 

 

You know as well as we all know that they removed any reference to LTNs or CPZs in the run-up to the local elections - that was a strategic decision by the powers that be in Southwark Labour. Not one flyer that dropped through our door even acknowledged the existence of CPZs, LTNs etc....yet when they got elected suddenly it's "we have a mandate from the people to do more". 

 

Only those who are politically naïve (or politically blinkered) think that wasn't a very deliberate strategic decision on their part.

Edited Tuesday at 09:41 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But Southwark has, repeatedly, deliberately and intentionally, ignored the views of constituents time and time again over this issue. They have deliberately bent the rules to try and get the result they want - even with this they failed to get the mandate they needed and then they fell back on the "consultations are not referendums" spin.

You're constantly telling us that it is a small, vocal minority so why not back yourself and agree to lobby to have a definitive consultation that the council agrees to action the outcome that responds to the views of the majority residents? 

That's your belief. But the fact is that they stood on a manifesto entitled 'Greener, safer, fairer' which is very clear of their intention to address issues of road safety, health, environment and sustainability. They were elected on that basis and under a representative democracy that means developing schemes that deliver on those commitments. If the electorate feel that, given a reasonable opportunity to improve things, that they have failed to do so, then they get to vote them out. That is our system. 

The idea that any time they want to trial something, or implement a new scheme that they have to hold a referendum is a way of ensuring that literally nothing every changes. You're calling for a NIMBYs charter of permanent inaction. Which of course you know.  

Edited Tuesday at 09:48 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

5 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The idea that any time they want to trial something, or implement a new scheme that they have to hold a referendum is a way of ensuring that literally nothing every changes. You're calling for a NIMBYs charter of permanent inaction. Which of course you know.  

No I am not - I am calling on the council to use a consultation in the manner which they are bound to do so which is per the below (and nothing Southwark has done adequately fulfils this). Only the most blinkered would suggest the council has come any close to the below.

 

Not sure why you don't think running a definitive consultation to close this off once and for all would not be in everyone's best interests - unless, of course, deep down you know the results would go against you - which brings us back to exactly why the council have ignored the below and had to pull every under-hand tactic out of their playbook to try and get what they want.

What is consultation?

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.

[Penguin68]

I'm sorry, Earl but you are confusing objectives with means. ULEZ and CPZ and LTN actions are all means. By endorsing any stated  objectives you do not have to, or indeed need to, endorse the means.

One way of achieving many objectives around climate issues would be to massively reduce the numbers of people globally - that's a means to an end, but not one I might wish to pursue. Similarly you can ease a housing crisis by building more homes, or having fewer people.

These are reductio ad absurdam's of course, but you must not confuse means with ends - I can support any aspiration I like, without therefore and necessarily agreeing with or endorsing anyone's particular solution - and especially where that solution is not listed with the objective.

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

I'm sorry, Earl but you are confusing objectives with means. ULEZ and CPZ and LTN actions are all means. By endorsing any stated  objectives you do not have to, or indeed need to, endorse the means.

The devil is always in the detail - and the detail was massively lacking from the Southwark Labour manifesto (it always is)!

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That's your belief. But the fact is that they stood on a manifesto entitled 'Greener, safer, fairer' which is very clear of their intention to address issues of road safety, health, environment and sustainability. They were elected on that basis and under a representative democracy that means developing schemes that deliver on those commitments. If the electorate feel that, given a reasonable opportunity to improve things, that they have failed to do so, then they get to vote them out. That is our system. 

The idea that any time they want to trial something, or implement a new scheme that they have to hold a referendum is a way of ensuring that literally nothing every changes. You're calling for a NIMBYs charter of permanent inaction. Which of course you know.  

Absolutely no detail and 'new schemes' is typical fudging political speak.

What is fair about spending literally millions on scheme to reconfigure a tiny area of road in the wealthiest part of the borough, during a cost of living crisis? Meantime, streets in less wealthy areas are left to rot.

To this I would add that our allegedly greener council wants to sublet and monetise our precious local parks to the max...

Edited Tuesday at 11:09 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

You may not like it, but this is exactly why we live in a representative democracy - People will agree on a desired outcome, but endlessly disagree on the means. That's why you need people whose full time job it is to consult with a variety of experts and stakeholder, review data and make decisions on behalf of those they represent (decisions which would otherwise be mired in disagreement and inaction forever). A system where you hold referenda on every scheme, is one where nothing ever happens. As Malumbu says above, you would never get any new infrastructure, no nuclear power stations, no new housing developments, no new roads, bike lanes etc.

If you don't like the decisions they make, or they fail to deliver their objectives, you can vote them out.

[Rockets]

Let's just ground your comments on the weight of opposition to the Dulwich Square proposals - the council said they had 3234 comments left in the consultation and 82% of respondents identified as being from Dulwich. This is how the comments were ranked (in terms of do the changes meet the objectives). Pretty compelling and how did the council respond - "thanks for your interest we are proceeding with the plans regardless".

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how the council fulfilled it's duty of office in relation to a consultation per the below? 

 

What is consultation?

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.