former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[holymoly]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi first mate,

> I would have been consulted via the DCC meetings

> and papers.

Hi First Mate

I would think that the officer of the DCC could dig out any replies from Cllrs perhaps if nothing more concrete direct. She is very helpful.

Support officer: Beverley Olamijulo, Constitutional Officer.

Postal address:

160 Tooley Street

London

SE1 2QH

Phone: 020 7525 7234

Email: [email protected]

[James Barber]

The final decision about implementing 1 hour parking spaces has been issued:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDecisionDetails.aspx?IId=50007568&Opt=1

If you look at the schedule you'll see we've been successful in stopping current no restriction car parking space around East Dulwich ward being converted to 1 hour restricted car parking bays.

[nxjen]

Good news

[first mate]

James, page won't open. Do you mean you have stopped any restricted parking or enabled restricted parking for one hour?

[worldwiser]

I'm unclear on something: the consultation results show that residents overwhelmingly rejected the proposals and yet they're going ahead anyway? Why do they bother with a consultation then??

[worldwiser]

My mistake: here's the real link you need - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s56043/Appendix%201%20Schedule%20of%20sites%20recommended%20to%20be%20implemented%20or%20cancelled.pdf

We're all off the book in ED.

[first mate]

I still don't understand James post. The aim of s'wark Labour was to introduce lots of new one hour restricted oarking bays where there was formerly no restricted parking at all. is this going ahead?

[nxjen]

If you open the link to the spreadsheet posted by worldwiser the column to the left says either implement or cancel. I take this to mean that where it says 'cancel' any proposed changes to parking on those streets will not now go ahead whereas those where it says 'implement' will.

[first mate]

nxjen, yes It looks like proposed changes to large parts of ED including Nx have been cancelled. Thank goodness.

[fazer71]

I found it bonkers where the result is 50/50 spilt, it is implemented!!!!!

Common sense in all the others.

Parking restrictions in ED would kill small business's as it has done in Peckham and every other thriving high street.

Insane UK.

[first mate]

Fazer, agree about 50:50.

[James Barber]

Apologies for not being clearer.

We opposed changing unrestricted East Dulwich ward parking to 1 hour restricted car parking. Success for our patch.

Labour Southwark have introduced such restrictions in many other places - despite 50:50 consultation results - because it was in their 2014 Southwark Labour manifesto. They resoundly won that election so people get what they voted for. Always worth reading the small print before voting in local elections.

[landsberger]

> Always worth

> reading the small print before voting in local

> elections.

"We will go into coalition with the Conservatives at a local or national level if we don't get a majority".

Nope, don't remember THAT one in the Lib Dem's manifesto...

[Zebedee Tring]

And I don't remember "Of course we aren't going to scrap student loans. We're going to increase them massively, you gullible lot".

[James Barber]

Hi ZT, landsberger,

Manifesto are clearly framed at winning an outright majority. As I'm sure you realise.

If you fail to win an outright majority parties negotiate. Since the Tories won a majority we've seen what they wanted to do all along and were blocked when lib demos were in a coalition with them. Do you honesty prefer unfettered torism?

[Penguin68]

Since the Tories won a majority we've seen what they wanted to do all along and were blocked when lib demos were in a coalition with them.

The irony here is that the Tories included items in their manifesto which they knew would please their most extreme supporters, but which they expected to negotiate away in a coalition - the failure of the Lib Dems to win sufficient (indeed hardly any) seats has left the Tories with manifesto commitments they really didn't want.

Of course, once the Lib Dems made it clear that they might back either horse (Clegg still pro Cameron, Cable definitely for Labour) then potential Lib Dem voters who might have wanted a Tory government 'softened' by Lib Dems, or a Labour government ditto, realised that they couldn't know what they were getting by voting Lib Dem, so voted for the main party they would otherwise have liked to see in coalition with the Lib Dems. Simples (and really, quite funny).

[Zebedee Tring]

James, I only mentioned the Lib Dem manifesto because you referred to Southwark Labour's manifesto. You were the one to make a political issue out of an issue that I don't consider to be political.

Let's face it, Lib Dems are on very sticky ground when they comment on other parties' manifestos. A real case of the pot calling the kettle black. The consequences of the Lib Dems going totally against one of their most popular manifesto commitments can be seen in the fact that the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group can now travel to Westminster in one people carrier.

And the Lib Dems in government did nothing to block madman Lansley's crazy NHS "reforms". So much for moderating "unfettered Toryism".

You say "Labour Southwark have introduced such restrictions in many other places .... because it was in their 2014 Southwark Labour manifesto." You may not support this policy (I don't) but you would have to acknowledge that at least Labour are following the promises in their manifesto, something that has recently been alien to the Lib Dems.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Always worth reading the small print before voting in local

> elections.

Hi James

As has already been pointed out, it's clearly not worth reading the small print in any Liberal Democrat manifesto, because once they sniffed the first chance of power in a 100 years it and their their so called 'principles' went out of the window. You can repeat the stupid mantra of 'we did it to give the country stable government' because that wasn't the reality at all. The country saw through what the duplicitous Liberal Democrats were up to with their 'Orange Bookers masquerading in social democrat clothing when it suits' stance. A local example of this, of course, was your now ex-Southwark MP claiming to his constituency residents to be opposed to the bedroom tax while voting in favour of it in the region of seven times. You can fool some of the people, etc. comes to mind.

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew1011,

Every local promise I and my colleagues have made to East Dulwich we deliver in each term after being elected/re elected.

And yes your right politically we should have stuck to our guns over tuition fees and sacrificed other policies we wanted - in my view. But we wouldn't have had things like the pupil premium.

But Labour introduced the fees having promised in manifesto's not and then increased them after promising in manifestos not to and not having to dilute and compromise due to coalitions.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Andrew1011,

> Every local promise I and my colleagues have made

> to East Dulwich we deliver in each term after

> being elected/re elected.

Don't obfuscate, you know I am talking nationally - which was also what you were talking about.

> And yes your right politically we should have

> stuck to our guns over tuition fees and sacrificed

> other policies we wanted - in my view. But we

> wouldn't have had things like the pupil premium.

> But Labour introduced the fees having promised in

> manifesto's not and then increased them after

> promising in manifestos not to and not having to

> dilute and compromise due to coalitions.

My point was not that you should have stuck to your guns over tuition fees at all and diversionary waffling about one or two other issues doesn't take away the fact that your party propped up the most right-wing government sine the war (except this one obvs). My point is that your fellow Orange Booker Liberals jumped into bed with the Tories at the first available opportunity. Your near electoral wipe-out was due to the chickens quite justifiably coming home to roost.

[fazer71]

Wrong.

The problem is/was the voting system.

Realisation of a wasted vote results in two party politics.

Fairytale socialism vs the reality of capitalism.

No way in hell the LD had a future the only option was sh?t or bust.

It ended the only way it could be bust.

Move on .. Or go backwards with socialist insanity.

The true definition making the same mistakes over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Most voters with a 1/2% memory got wise to it..

Those with a goldfish brain live in a fantasy world.

[Penguin68]

The problem the Lib Dems had was that they failed (as did the Tories) to explain what a coalition government might be - in particular that there would have to be horse trading of favoured ideas. It would have been possible for those Lib Dems not in office (there were a few) to have honourably abstained on the student fees vote - thus demonstrating at least some reluctance.

But, as I have already suggested - once we thought that there would be a coalition with the Lib Dems this time round (again) but weren't clear who they would join, then many voted for the principle party with which they hoped the Lib Dems would join - rather than the Lib Dems themselves - as they might have ended up with the other party instead. If I want Lib Dems to work with Labour - but a vote for them might end up with them working with the Tories again, then I'll just vote straight Labour - which gives me the better option (and vice versa).

No one (and I do mean no one) who votes for any party (nationally or locally) necessarily subscribes whole-heartedly to each and every manifesto commitment - (I suspect that's true even of the candidates themselves). We tend, (many of us, I suspect) to choose (fanatics apart) what we consider the least worse selection of commitments and the least worse option of leaders and candidates. Not absolutely always, some candidates have a personal following that transcends manifestos. But mainly.

[James Barber]

Thanks P68, f71, A1011,

But can we please get back to local issues in East Dulwich...

[Zebedee Tring]

OK James, so long as you stop slagging off Labour at every opportunity and telling us how great the Lib Dems are by comparison.

[Bobby P]

Well, thank you, James, for opposing this nonsense and it is indeed good that they mainly have not imposed further parking restrictions.

If you could take a similarly practical view to the disruptions to traffic and parking that would result from the Melbourne Grove barrier and pinch-points, and recant your preposterous view on the traffic survey showing the opposite of what it actually shows, we'd all have a lot of respect for you.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Apologies for not being clearer.

> We opposed changing unrestricted East Dulwich ward

> parking to 1 hour restricted car parking. Success

> for our patch.

>

> Labour Southwark have introduced such restrictions

> in many other places - despite 50:50 consultation

> results - because it was in their 2014 Southwark

> Labour manifesto. They resoundly won that election

> so people get what they voted for. Always worth

> reading the small print before voting in local

> elections.