former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[gsirett]

removed, should have been on CPZ thread

[BrandNewGuy]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> Brandnewguy.

>

> I don't and have not advocated universal parking

> restriction.

Yes, you said it was OK to ban you from nearby streets. Who would be administering this and who would pay? You?

[milk76]

James

I have had a look at the detailed numbers from the consultation. I have calculated the percentage of residents and businesses in each of the proposed cpz areas that are in favour.

3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only (62% of residents in favour)

4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54% of residents in favour)

5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Tintagel (57% of residents in favour)

Obviously the percentage number in favour is higher if you add in the (what if the neighbouring street had a cpz option) favourables, but i have not done this, so 54, 57 and 62% favourables are the lowest end of the scale. I would not want to be accused of being biased.

This is a clear majority of zone residents and businesses in favour of any one of these options. Interestingly even some of the posters who are very dubious of the benefits of a CPZ are in favour of a trial period. There is just a lack of firm reassurance that it could be reversed if found to be non productive.

The no campaign is going to be very vocal but I would urge you to represent the clear democratic wishes of this Derwent centred area.

[BrandNewGuy]

But the zone residents won't be the only ones affected by a trial, therefore all non-zone residents affected should have their views tken into account. Otherwise it's not democratic.

And I don't know why anyone would believe that the trial period would be reversible. Southwark would see it as a foot in the door for CPZ-creep and more lovely cash in the bank for them and no overall improvement in the parking situation for East Dulwich.

[Loz]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> The no campaign is going to be very vocal but I

> would urge you to represent the clear democratic

> wishes of this self centred area.

Fixed that for you.

[DJKillaQueen]

Milk you are as bad as james for confusing the figures :)

Of the total number of residents living on Derwent only 26% have expressed a view in favour. 60% didn't take part and it is impossible to know the reasons why.

It has always been my view that a major flaw in consultation process is that there is no minimum target for participation that would be required for validation of a result. Requiring a 51% response rate might be considered a fair and democratic process for example. Basing decisions and policy on minority response rates rarely leads to a fair outcome imo.

[gm99]

@DJKQ

The council's position is that a 20% response rate is significant:

"The PEP [Parking and Enforcement Plan] sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold... In accordance with the PEP, other local information sources (such as quantitative parking studies, future development, likely impact of surrounding parking controls and community council opinion) should be given greater weighting where the threshold is not reached."

E.g. http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=22397 p. 11 (relates to Lucas Gardens and Southampton Way consultation)

This appears to be a pragmatic measure on the part of the council and not a claim to statistical significance. It sounds like a 51% response rate is unheard of. The document linked above claims that a 15% response rate is "an average response rate, consistent with similar consultation elsewhere in the borough" (p. 11). As alluded to before, this suggests to me that the consultation methodology is flawed and at best gives only a vague indication of overall local views. This leaves a question about cost/benefit: how much more would it cost to achieve genuinely valid and robust consultation results, and would the additional expense be worth it?

[peckhamboy]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> James

>

> I have had a look at the detailed numbers from the

> consultation. I have calculated the percentage of

> residents and businesses in each of the proposed

> cpz areas that are in favour.

>

>

> 3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only

> (62% of residents in favour)

> 4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie,

> Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54%

> of residents in favour)

> 5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie,

> Tintagel (57% of residents in favour)

>

> Obviously the percentage number in favour is

> higher if you add in the (what if the neighbouring

> street had a cpz option) favourables, but i have

> not done this, so 54, 57 and 62% favourables are

> the lowest end of the scale. I would not want to

> be accused of being biased.

>

> This is a clear majority of zone residents and

> businesses in favour of any one of these options.

> Interestingly even some of the posters who are

> very dubious of the benefits of a CPZ are in

> favour of a trial period. There is just a lack of

> firm reassurance that it could be reversed if

> found to be non productive.

>

> The no campaign is going to be very vocal but I

> would urge you to represent the clear democratic

> wishes of this Derwent centred area.

Are you serious? On one hand you argue for a Derwent only CPZ because of a majority in that street (ie each street should individually have its own choice), and on the other hand you are prepared to shoehorn in 5 streets that were majority against the CPZ (on the basis of an overall majority across that entire area). Which is it? Do we take a majority view across an area - in which case the 60 something percent in the consulted area would seem to be significant - or do we take it on a street by street basis, in which case there are two one road CPZs?

You can't have it both ways and your figures above are frankly just the very "spin" you are so quick to accuse others of.

[Jasmina]

I live on Tintagel and would like to know where I can find the detailed numbers from the consultation.

Can anyone advise or send a link?

[fazer71]

umm

[fazer71]

sorry pls delete

[the-e-dealer]

So why the deleted post ? Official Secrets?

[milk76]

Peckhamboy

I am pointing out that following the consultation the council have given three area options of CPZ to consider, as listed above, each of which have the majority backing of the residents in those areas.

I took the time to calculate the actual results from each proposed residental block as there are leaflets being thrown around saying that only seven percent of people wanted a cpz. That is simply not true of the residents of any of the proposed zones being contemplated.

DJKQ - I am reporting the straight results of an election. I am sorry if that confuses you.

Let me try and explain how an election works simply for you. An electorate is defined and then they are polled. The votes cast are counted and listed as integers and as a percentage. People who decline to vote are not counted for any party. Your number is the confusing spin. If you wish to present the results as you have then for balance it is just as accurate to say on Derwent only 15% of people voted against having a CPZ. I think that is just crooked sounding, hence my straight figures

[fazer71]

Nope I was trying to insert some script for a CPZ Poll...

I think this will work...

Try this CPZ POLL

[DJKillaQueen]

There's no need to be patronising milk. If you want people to respect your view then it helps to respect theirs. You know nothing about my level of knowledge of local government after all. You clearly want a CPZ but don't have anything like the support of the majority of residents on your street. An equally valid question to ask would be why did 60% of residents NOT take part in the consultation?

Gm99 - wholeheartedly agree! Consultation is required by law but it could be argued that the low required response rate plays into an authorities hands by giving them scope to make of the results as they please whilst not really being rerquired to make the kind of effort that would encourage a higher and therefore more definitive response.

Compare that to the efforts made to get people to complete the census forms when government funding depends on the number of heads recorded in the borough for example.

[milk76]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> There's no need to be patronising milk. If you

> want people to respect your view then it helps to

> respect theirs.

What was the first thing you said about me?

> Milk you are as bad as james for confusing the figures smiling smiley

Practice what you preach.

[DJKillaQueen]

That is neither insulting nor patronising but fact. Claiming that two thirds are in favour is NOT the same as saying two thirds of those WHO RESPONDED are in favour.

Both ways of interpreting the results paint a very different picture which is my point. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that because it doesn't serve your view to do so. James it could be argued is doing the same. James however does not result to patronising or insulting those who suggest flaws in his reasoning of the figures.

[the-e-dealer]

I remember a street in what was Bellenden ward where there was a vote. Half the residents wanted a CPZ the other not, So half the road was made residents parking. Not sure what happened next!

[judith.arkwright@hot]

Dear James,

I thought I would take this opportunity to say how much I hope that the proposals for the Controlled Parking Zone will not go through.

I live just behind Lordship Lane. Occasionally I cannot park my car outside my house- but I just park somewhere else. This does not worry me in the slightest and it is a small price to pay for living in a vibrant area full of independent businesses. I believe that a Controlled Park zone will destroy this- so please dont do it.

Thanks and good luck!

[milk76]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> That is neither insulting nor patronising but

> fact. Claiming that two thirds are in favour is

> NOT the same as saying two thirds of those WHO

> RESPONDED are in favour.

>

> Both ways of interpreting the results paint a very

> different picture which is my point. You don't

> seem to want to acknowledge that because it

> doesn't serve your view to do so. James it could

> be argued is doing the same. James however does

> not result to patronising or insulting those who

> suggest flaws in his reasoning of the figures.

The difference between the our posts is this. I posted the actual result. You posted, factoring in turnout, so to make it look as though only a minority were actually in favour (26%) of a cpz. This alters the perception of the actual result, that was two to one in favour, dramatically.

Your methodology is not without some merit statistically. However as you could just as accurately have said

Of the total number of residents living on Derwent only 15% have expressed a view against a cpz.

Your post is clearly misleading and to accuse others confusing the data is simply laughable. Or put another way you would look right at home in Tony Blair's spin room circa 2001.

[fazer71]

Milk it's aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

waste of time.

They don?t get it that?s how Labour ruined our economy and put us and our future grandchildren in debt.

And they'll do it again ....

Incompetent illogical mathematics all over the shop??

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,772215,page=42

[easytiger]

Some of you need to go back to school and learn math, don't go to the primary school on Grove Vale as you may not be able to park near it.

This is a flawed consultation, on many levels and Milk you can go pages back and read all about it. I love the way James Barber tried to wriggle his way out of the issue RE ?20000 given by the developer building flats on the garden centre by the station, the money going towards this and any future CPZ. Didn't go down well when this was found out and his excuse was lame.

Once again, this consultation was performed within a zone, where the majority of folks say no thanks.

There is much figure spinning going on here.

The leader of the council and colleagues went through these figures with Paul Gellard and Tim Walker two weeks ago and they voted option 2, no cpz but make improvements in the streets around the station. This should be done.

[fredricketts]

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and

the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

Do these politicians live in cuckoo land? What survey has been done to come to this conclusion?

Manipulating the figures again to suite themselves, it?s a great democracy we live in, JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD,

These politicians need a Toilet roll permantley around their necks, for the amount of cr*p that comes out of their mouths.

[fredricketts]

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and

the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

Do these politicians live in cuckoo land? What survey has been done to come to this conclusion?

Manipulating the figures again to suite themselves, it?s a great democracy we live in, JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD,

These politicians need a Toilet roll permantley around their necks, for the amount of cr*p that comes out of their mouths.

[fredricketts]

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and

the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

Do these politicians live in cuckoo land? What survey has been done to come to this conclusion?

Manipulating the figures again to suite themselves, it?s a great democracy we live in, JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD,

These politicians need a Toilet roll permantley around their necks, for the amount of cr*p that comes out of their mouths.