Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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]

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.

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.

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.

> 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...

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • If you're a fundraising intermediary, reporting promptly and accurately on how you've raised and spent funds seems quite important.
    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...