Rockets

Oh my....Ashworth...deary, deary me....that tape is pretty damning....he is royally shafting Corbyn and the Tories will be focusing on his own shadow cabinet member admitting he is a security risk! I do feel sorry for him as he has been done like a kipper on that one (no-one who has listened to the tape will think he is "joshing" and its "banter") but this is the big problem Labour has - a lot of their own leadership team (the ones who haven't been run out of the party by Momentum) are as scared of Corbyn as many of the public are.

They all look pretty bleak to me but I agree a hung parliament will mean more of the same for years to come and we'll be doing it all again very soon and probably not actually getting anywhere.

I think the one thing that everyone can agree on is that this country's infrastructure needs support and investment and, when you look at what all the parties are suggesting for the NHS there isn't a huge amount of difference between them - just the way they get there. The picture of the boy on the floor in the hospital is shocking but, for anyone who has used the NHS in the last 30 years, not at all surprising - we have all had to wait hours and hours and that has been the case for decades. Boris' reaction was awful and wrong but any politician being grandstanded like that by a journalist will have been caught off guard. The timing of the story was not a coincidence. Corbyn needed something else to hit Boris regarding the NHS as the NHS for sale mantra wasn't working or gaining sufficient traction. Also he needed to move the narrative away from that given the suggestion is that the leaked dossiers came from the Russians and Corbyn could not be seen anywhere near that. Once you scratch beneath the surface you realise the picture was being manipulated by the media and politicians. Corbyn first stood up and showed the image at a rally of supporters and said the boy had pneumonia - he didn't he had flu. That set the train in motion - social media lit up with people, quite rightly asking why a boy with pneumonia was on a hospital floor. It later transpires that the boy had been assessed, moved into a bed for observation and then had to be moved out of that bed because a child in need of more urgent attention needed the bed. Suddenly the narrative has changed and it isn't all it appears to be (shocking still) and there are a hundred factors contributing to the situation. The parents are now asking (after sending the pictures to the Mirror) that their son not become a political football but Corbyn made him a political football by knowingly making him the No.1 talking point for the day. Then later when the Labour activists shouted abuse at a Tory a report went out that one of the them had hit an advisor - which was absolute nonsense but, once again the damage had already been done as the story was out there. (I actually think the best reaction in that video is of the old couple standing watching Hancock being heckled and then quite wonderfully say to the man on the bike - will you shut up now please!). Both parties lie. Both parties use the media to manipulate the narrative. Both parties fake videos - the FT has asked Corbyn to pull down a video that the FT did on free broadband as Labour have massively edited it to meet their own ends to mislead. They are both as bad as each other. All anyone can do is scratch beneath the surface to find out what really is happening and what can, and can't be done, by their chosen party. The good news is that it will all be over on Friday...I think we are all sick and tired of it now!

Cella - you miss the point of that video entirely.....Caudwell does pay his taxes but will leave if Labour get in because of their draconian attacks on the wealthy - that leaves a hole in the tax received for the UK - where does the Labour government find that money from - what if more tax paying billionaires leave - and as a reminder Corbyn said he thinks 1 billionaire is 1 too many? Borrow more maybe? Add to the borrowing for the WASPI programme that was sold to everyone as fully costed yet it transpires it isn't at all? Would there be no shame in that either? The top 1% of earners pay 27% of the UK's income tax - just let that sink in for a moment. Imagine 50% of the top 1% leave (because they can or they can move to a tax-haven?) - where does that leave the government coffers and where do Labour look to next? We all crave for a nirvana like state where everything can be done on the whim and prayer but unfortunately the economy doesn't work like that - and whilst Labour are appealing to voters with the good vs evil mantra unfortunately a lot of it just doesn't stack up when you scratch beneath the surface.

The fact remains that if the best Labour can hope for is a hung parliament then they have meteorically failed - they should be romping home with a huge majority - but they are not because they have gone too far the other way and it is scaring people (more than Boris scares them). The rhetoric of tax the rich, ban billionaires, stop the sale of the NHS, nationalise everything, be neutral on Brexit, offer ?58bn to WASPIs (in a "fully costed" manifesto and then say actually that money may need to be borrowed), ban private schools, chuck free stuff at people etc seems not to be resonating enough. Why, because a lot of what they are putting out there does not stand up to scrutiny and are nothing more than soundbites and playing into the right-wing media message of - "these guys will bankrupt the country - again"? Watch the video in this BBC article and McDonnell's body language towards the Caudwell - his hatred for anyone successful is plain to see (look at his reaction when Caudwell mentions the work he does with charities and McDonnell's body language throughout) and a lot of people actually think that there is no problem being successful and wealthy and you need that in an economy to drive it forward, yet Labour seem to be positioning success as something to be ashamed of or to be attacked - they appear to be trying to recreate Class War of the 80s and they are missing the point entirely - yes tax avoidance should be clamped down upon but they are throwing everyone who is wealthy into the same bucket - just because you are a billionaire doesn't mean you don't pay taxes. It only takes one or two of Caudwell's of this world to leave the UK (remember he has paid ?300m in tax) and then one wonders where they would plan to replace that lost revenue from. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50704546 If Labour don't win they will need to return with a more moderate leadership team and create messages and policies that resonate with the centre-ground voters.

Corbyn is hugely divisive and it starts within his own party, he has isolated the moderates, failed to act on the anti-Semitism within the party and has shown weak leadership. He has been on the fringes of the party for a long time and many within the party have said for good reason and feel that what we currently see is reflective of that. Labour should be wiping the floor with the Tories but can't because Jeremy can't control the extreme fringes within his own party and then when he has been on public debates just ummed and ahh'd his way through - he is coming across as someone who knows what he really wants to say but stops himself and says something else that is likely to be far less controversial: everything from his position on Brexit to whether he watches the Queen's speech he has seemed to fudge the answers and whilst many people will see that he can't do any wrong those are not the people who will get him into power - he needs the swing voter to back him and no matter how much free stuff he offers them he appears to be struggling to get them to back him. And that is because they doubt him as a person. His background of radicalism and his links to groups that many consider unsavoury was a major concern for many in Labour when he was elected to the leadership position.

Removed duplicate message

Those stats sum up Corbyn's problem very succinctly. He doesn't come across as a credible leader and all of the public debates have amplified that. He also seems to come across as someone who has to stop himself saying what he really wants to say and replaces it with a soundbite and that worries people. Labour should be walking this election but have self-destructed with their choice of leader and leadership team.

We will agree to disagree on who really has the power in Labour nowadays...it started with the election of Ed rather than David and we all know how that happened. Momentum has rooted out the moderates under Corbyn's watch and the real power lies with McDonnell and McClusky. It is interesting to read the BBC writing about a change of direction for Labour in the last two weeks of the election: it is clear what they have been doing is not working. Barry Gardiner is doing the media rounds and spending a lot of his time having to defend his treatment of the ITV journalist yesterday and whether he believes in the freedom of the press. The subtlety in what happened there was Jeremy sitting there letting it happen taking notes quite happy not to answer the question: everything Jeremy is doing from neutral on Brexit, to the TV debates and the Andrew Neil interview is projecting weakness and that is hurting Labour. The Labour leadership team spend most of their time having to undo issues they created.

This is Corbyn's 9th or 10th election and bar this one and the last one he had been tucked away on the fringes of the party - for good reason. Now he is the party (after being elected by the unions and set to task to weed out all of the moderates in the party) and I think we are all seeing the devastating results and the more he puts himself in the public eye and throws money and free stuff at the electorate the more objective amongst us are seeing that he can't lead his own party yet alone the country. He will do more damage than good with his fiscally suicidal manifesto that will impact everyone not just the millionaires who work for billionaires - as he likes to put it! With each passing day his rhetoric is starting to wear a little thin and today's NHS for sale push (interestingly, a journalist asked a question on antisemitism and was told by his handlers that it wasn't an appropriate question and would not be answered) is starting to look a little desperate as he tries to wrestle his campaign back on track. Ask any Corbynista and they will talk to you about the media-agenda against them (look how they booed Laura Kuenssberg from the BBC when she asked a question at the Labour manifesto launch) but the problem is not the media but the way Labour are running their campaign, the ineffectiveness of their leader and their steadfast refusal to deal with the problems within their own party. Labour should be running rings around this awful Tory government but they aren't and that speak volumes. Let's hope the Labour party can eventually return to something a bit more electable in future but that won't happen until the death-grip the unions and far-left have on it is released.

Many properties are being reduced in price or pulled off the market at the moment as it has pretty much stalled due to usual seasonal slow-down amplified by Brexit and election uncertainty. A lot of people are taking their houses off with a view to going back on in the spring when they hope the markets will have picked-up again. Houses have been selling but seemingly only if they are high-end properties in super desirable locations and you find a buyer who is awash with cash as a lot of mortgage companies have been pushing back after surveys and insisting on reduced offers. It certainly isn't a feeding frenzy - the agents may claim so but more likely there can be high demand for good properties as there isn't a lot of stock on and much that is on is over-priced and low quality.

To be honest Southwark should probably stop any further works and spend more time fixing the mess they have made of their previous round of improvements - like the abomination that is the new Court Lane/Dulwich Village "improvement works" that have made the junction more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists and car users alike by way of a flawed design that has, additionally, increased pollution levels due to the daily gridlock it creates. Anyone who uses it either on foot, on a bike or in a car can see it is an accident waiting to happen yet no-one from the council seems to care and laud it as an example of best-practice when in fact it is anything but and seems to serve no purpose other than forwarding their own agenda. Does someone have to be badly injured there before they take heed or can they only take action if they have had a "consultation" to fix the errors made from the previous "consultation"?

James, Was the support for the extension communicated via the consultation data or post publication of the proposals? Is it that upon seeing which streets are going to get a CPZ those in neighbouring streets have communicated concerns about displacement? Are you not opening yourself up to criticism of conducting a second consultation by canvassing input from those roads, per your note above? Is the council still withholding the raw data from the consultation from those who have requested it?

Hardly, ever since the Lib Dems lost their council seats the council has had carte-blanche to do as they please. And they have been. The CPZ, and the charging for waste collections, and the charging for park car parks, I can assure, are but the tip of the iceberg for East Dulwich and surrounding areas. So it isn't a single issue, nor is the CPZ a minor issue for Lordship Lane - as has been debated ad infinitum on this forum by those concerned about its impact on the majority who live in the area.

Where I get off very much depends on to where I might be travelling....;-) For a start our local Goose Green ward councillor is a self-proclaimed Marxist....and Marxism is now rife within the Labour party at all levels from Jeremy Corbyn through to local councillors. Since Jeremy Corbyn took leadership of the Labour party there has been a root and branch effort to clear the party, at all levels, of anyone with more centrist views and this has filtered all the way through to local councils and councillors. It is why Tom Watson set-up a more centrist group to give Labour MPs who weren't hard-left leaning a chance to have their voice heard and to help determine policy as policy-making had been overrun by Marxist leaning members. Additionally, hard-left groups like Momentum (or Maomentum as many centrist Labour party members refer to it) have been targeting Labour councils to oust more centrist Labour members to be replaced by Corbynistas with more hardline left leanings. They have been running training courses for local councillors to help attack the seats and prepare them for roles. This has impacted Soutwark and the policies and approaches we are now seeing are a reflection of this.

The council has their wish for a CPZ in East Dulwich and, by hook or by crook, they got it. The outcome of this "consultation" was never in doubt - the council wanted a CPZ in East Dulwich not for the better of the environment or the people who live in the area but for them - it's a cash cow - Southwark made a ?6m+ surplus from parking fines, CPZ etc and this is part of their revenue strategy - along with charging for garden waste collections and parking at parks. They now have their foot in the door in East Dulwich and will soon expand it on the basis of the displacement caused by the small area getting it in this round. This is likely to be the beginning of the end of Lordship Lane and surrounding areas as we know it (I wonder how the traders on Grove Vale feel as the overly long hours of operation WILL impact their businesses) but then the hard-left leaning council cares not one jot for the "affluent" people (as they see it) living or trading in the area - they think everyone has money to burn and want their share of it. The moral of this story - you can't trust politicians (of any political persuasion) - they will all lie to, mislead, hoodwink and generally use their constituents for their own benefit. This whole process merely highlights everything that is wrong with politics nowadays.

It's the council's own version of left-wing privatisation - take something that was previously funded centrally and pass the cost on to those deemed able to afford it (CPZ, garden waste bins, park car parking). They are at pains to point out that they cannot use money raised from, say, the CPZ or parking fines to fund other services so, at the end of every year, have to fritter their ?7m+ surplus on white-elephant projects like the replacement of paving slabs and kerbs across the East Dulwich ward, which is ongoing at present. I very much suspect that should a Labour government prevail at the next election those rules of redistribution of raised funds will be loosened and anyone deemed wealthy enough to own, say, a car or garden will find such things are but the tip of the stealth-tax iceberg. The damage the current Labour party is doing to itself is that it is so far left that many are crying out for a more centrist option and the problem is rife throughout the party and running (through Momentum) to local council officials and policy. East Dulwich (and other such areas that have been rejuvenated) are seen as fair game and a resource fit for harvesting. At the macro level this is why rumours of a leadership challenge are starting to circulate as elements within try desperately to pull power away from the unions and the Marxists and back towards a more centrist (and they believe more electable) stance.

James, The paving replacement works have been taking place along the length of Goodrich Road and have now reached the junction with Hillcourt Road.

James, I not sure anyone complained about the paving slabs - perhaps you misinterpreted the post. Numerous times you have posted on here (in defence of raising revenues via a CPZ) that the council has lost central government funding and now has to raise revenues by other means to protect essential services - yet at the same time the council manages to find money to replace huge swaths of paving slabs across the wards. And these are not one or two slabs but whole streets - take a walk around the area next time you are here to see for yourself - we received notification that our street will be having the works done in a couple of weeks. Could you find out how much has been spent on this project that Conway is executing on behalf of the council?

James, I notice there is a lot of pavement replacement work going on across your ward and we all seem to be getting brand new paving slabs and kerbs to replace the existing pavement and kerbs. As nice as the new pavements look, how much are yuo spending on them and were these works essential?

James, Your response: The CPZ consultation unapologetically prioritises the views of those living on a given street. No one lives in the parks so there is no relevant comparison here.....is ever so slightly condescending and deliberately misses the point....the park car parking consultation allows the community to cast their vote based on their determination of the impact on the local community as whole...the CPZ consultation had no such mechanism to do that and despite that 25% of respondents said, completely unprompted, that they had concerns about the impact on Lordship lane. And you continue to conveniently ignore answering any questions about your thoughts on the impact on the CPZ on the streets that do not have it. And per rjsmall I think it is time to stop playing the austerity card - it's wearing a bit thin - we all know the cycle of govt spending - Labour spends, Tories then have to cut, then Labour comes in and has to spend again and so it goes on and on. But it doesn't get away from the fact that Lambeth appear to be spending about 50% less on roads than Southwark. The Southwark report to which I refer isn't gross spending and doesn't include any money from TFL, it is a section of the report that shows how the multi-million pound surplus made by Southwark from parking charges, permits and PCNs is invested. You'll find it under the section: How the surplus from parking income has been spent? on Page 38 of the Southwark Transport Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2017/18.

I don't know if anyone else had the "Your Services are Changing" leaflet that dropped through the door this morning detailing the new collection process but it is telling that on the opening page as part of the Why Is it Changing section is opens with.... "Most people in the borough do not have gardens...By asking for a small contribution from those who want to continue having their garden waste collected we can protect the essential services we deliver across the borough....." It is so obviously a tax on those the council think can afford it but more worryingly this sets a very dangerous precedent as one wonders whether it then allows people who don't use those all of the essential services to claim they shouldn't be paying for them.

Bottom line is if you are lucky enough to have a garden or a car then this council sees you as a taxable revenue centre....challenge them on it and they remind you it goes to good causes for those less fortunate than you....I think we are supposed to just grin and bear it....roll on the next local council elections....

Interesting as well that you have to order (free) a new smaller brown bin for your food waste as you will not be able to put it in the big brown bins anymore. Does this mean anyone who doesn't pay for the brown bin collection will get a new smaller food bin? Also the collections of the large brown bin are going to be weekly so do as we are and share the cost between a few neighbours if you want to fight back a bit!!!

James, Thank you for replying. To address some of the points you raised: "I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich." Firstly, I was interested to read the park car park consultation online response mechanism that allowed the respondent to "oppose the plans in their entirety". Interesting that such a response was not given for the CPZ consultation - why was that? Why are you pushing the narrative that there is misinformation circulating when your own colleague Charlie Smith says in the SE22 magazine that "the overall response said that 69% of people were against it"?. "- The Chair took the 3rd option, which I think was the best one available to us. This had nothing to do with any requirement for the Council to have the meeting before a decision is taken - the council?s constitution has no such requirement so a decision could have been taken on the CPZ even if the meeting was cancelled (I would not have supported this option)." This might have benefited the council but it didn't benefit the members of the community, from both sides, who showed up to have their say and were denied that opportunity. "- There are plenty of people who want a CPZ in their area (predominantly in the area where I argue there should be one). They are not stooges of the council or under-cover council officers. They are expressing genuine concerns which the council is trying to address." No-one has suggested they are stooges for the council but the point many of us are raising and you, and those in favour of the CPZ, repeatedly fail to address or acknowledge is the negative impact this implementation will have on the broader community. We would all love to be able to park directly outside our houses but many are sanguine enough to realise that to do so close to Lordship Lane could well kill Lordship Lane as we know it. Why do you only ever pay lip service to these concerns - is it that you really don't care what happens to the thriving Lane community? "- It is illegal for the council to introduce a CPZ to raise revenue." As you keep stating but the facts speak for themselves - the council makes a huge amount of revenue from parking (?6m profit annually and counting) so you're hardly being dis-incentivised from rolling them out are you? And you didn't answer my question on what the council is re-investing that money in - just what did the council spend ?5.8m on road maintenance on last year and why has that increased from ?1.7m in 2011/12? And just for the benefit of reference from what I can tell Lambeth spent about ?2m on road maintenance in 2017/2018. - Any revenue that the council does raise goes straight back into public services anyway, it?s not as if it?s syphoned into the bank account of billionaires in the Cayman Islands. You are a bit obsessed with billionaires in the Cayman Islands...;-) I don't think anyone has suggested that is where the money ends-up and your repeated use of that phrase suggests you believe that because the money goes back into public services we should just all just smile, get on with it and pay it. I know the council thinks that those lucky enough to live around Lordship lane must be rolling in cash but we can all see the trends emerging here (CPZs, brown bin tax, green space car park charges). - You may disagree with the conclusions I have reached but I cannot see what evidence you have that I am not acting with the best interests of the community at heart. I really don't think you are acting in the best interests of the community at large. My personal feeling is that you are using the small number of roads around the station to impose a party-political agenda to see CPZs in East Dulwich, knowing full well that those roads will force parking issues into other areas and thus greasing the wheels to get more CPZs across the area. Given the spanking the two main political parties got in the recent local elections one would hope that local councillors would be mindful of keeping the majority of their electorate happy and you must be thanking your lucky stars the elections did not take in place London. It has been clear from the outset that the council manipulated the situation to create parking pressure (extension of double-yellow lines in only the CPZ consultation area before the consultation started), manipulated the consultation process to guarantee delivery of a CPZ and ultimately care not one jot for the vibrancy of Lordship lane or the views of the majority who live there. It will be interesting to see how the electorate reacts at the next local elections.