Rockets

Can't agree more - progress will only be made when planning policies are cognisant of every road user and every catalyst for the challenges the area faces. Unfortunately the council doesn't see it this way and is focusing solely on the car and car users as the problem - (Lambeth tried the same with Loughborough and it backfired massively and cost the tax payer a fortune to fix the issues - but of course because Labour has a huge majority in Lambeth there was no accountability). It is far more nuanced and complicated than that and Southwark's heavy-handed approach ultimately benefits no-one (except for maybe the vocal few on a few streets who now benefit from the council's plans). I did laugh when a poster wrote on here that they were fed-up with coaches and cars dropping kids off around the Townley Road area and will be glad when they are gone - therein lies the issue - there is so little empathy for anyone else's life nowadays: as long as you are alright Jack then everything is good - sod everyone else! We saw it with the CPZ and the vocal few who were championed by the council and used as nothing more than a trojan horse to get the plans through. The council's approach to planning is lazy and motivated by political views that the car is evil (and a healthy dose of wealth and car ownership is evil too) and they will love the fact (if they even bother reading what people in the area actually think anymore) the debate on here turned into one about the private schools rather than the fact that they are trying to close off a huge part of our local community to through traffic that will cause huge issues elsewhere. I am saddened when I read things like Cllr McCash's musings on private schools where an elected official can only see the world through his own politically motivated eyes and everything is black and white, good versus evil and there can never be anything more balanced or pragmatic. When you start to review all of the local council's decisions through that looking glass you then start to see what is going on here....."leafy" Dulwich is a bit of an irritation to them.....

Penguin hits the nail on the head.....if you then also throw in the suggested root-cause of the congestion being private schools in the area then the powers-that-be in Tooley Street start salivating uncontrollably. Most of our local elected officials view the schools with utter contempt - here's Cllr McCash's view on the them from his personal blog: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/labour-can-abolish-boris-johnson-if-it-promises-to-abolish-the-private-schools-that-created-him School congestion is not a private school problem - it is a school problem - we live close to a state school whose catchment area is supposed to be 800 metres yet every day the roads are blocked by people dropping the kids off from cars. Exdulwicher - doing nothing is not an option but do you have faith the council's plans will yield the desired results without massive impact elsewhere? A pragmatic review of the proposals alerts us all to some major flaws in the proposals and suggestions. Doing nothing would have been the preferable route of action before the previous DV improvements the council embarked on - in hindsight that was an utter disaster and a waste of money that has caused more congestion, more pollution and made the junction more dangerous (for all road-users and pedestrians). Creating a no car zone in the middle of Southwark may keep some local residents happy but makes life pretty awful for everyone else - those cars won't go away they will use a different route. But, once again, this is another case of our elected officials pushing something they think is in our best interests when really it is in their best interests. This is not a consultation exercise it is a plan validation exercise similar to the one they went through for the CPZ. Tooley Street won't be happy until they have squeezed everyone who lives in, and I quote Cllr McCash, "leafy" Dulwich for everything they possibly can. They view Dulwich, and its leafy surroundings, private schools and perceived wealth as an area to despise and attack.

Bels123 Slide 16 highlights the point beautifully....the council thinks people use Dulwich Village as a "short-cut" and they want to stop that from happening. If it is is being used as a short-cut that suggests that the cars won't disappear they will go another route - if it was purely school or local traffic you could lobby to say that these measures would force people to cycle or walk but it won't. These are through-journeys and those 7000 journeys will be forced along other routes. This is a carbon copy of what happened at Loughborough Junction - they shut off car access to one part of the Lambeth and it caused chaos in another and it was a disaster of the highest order and cost the tax-payer a fortune. Some of the more cynical amongst us might suggest that the improvement works Dulwich Village were deliberately designed to create congestion and increase pollution to allow them to accelerate their grand plan...a bit like the extension of double-yellows across ED to create parking chaos before the CPZ consultation...

Bels123 - I had read the documents to inform my decision but, as I am sure you will have noted yourself, the document doesn't say where the cars were going....it tells you the direction in which they are travelling not where they were going.....that last bit is pretty important (I learnt that bit in O level geography some years ago when doing basic road traffic management lessons)....because only then can the council, or local community, possibly make an informed decision on the impact of the measures they are suggesting i.e. are the majority of car movements school traffic, local traffic or through traffic? My personal feeling is that it is through traffic - hence my informed prediction of catastrophe.....;-) What do you think it is? After the CPZ debacle do you actually trust the council to do anything other than force through what they want rather than what the community wants? Do you actually believe this is a consultation process? If they push this proposal forward they will have to do something with Melbourne Grove as that would become the next logical route for people to take when Townley gets restricted and then they would need to deal with the left turn only onto Lordship Lane from ED Grove. But as with Loughborough junction councils tend not to worry about knock-on effect or consequences of their actions - they just do what they think is best for their objectives. We've danced this merry dance before with the CPZ and we don't have to have soothsaying capabilities to determine where it is going to end up.......

It doesn't take a traffic management genius to look at the plans the council are suggesting to realise they are fundamentally flawed and will cause a disaster for the other areas around it - unless of course you live in a car-free utopia dream world where your image of a modern city is a long way removed from reality and you believe people will suddenly stop using their cars for these journeys. Lambeth's Loughborough folly proved that the utopia is a long way from reality.... Has Southwark presented any information on to where people are heading when they use that junction - do they know? If not, I think they should as that would be very telling and probably essential to assess the impact of the measure. But we all know they won't as they don't actually care for a proper consultation or review process as they demonstrated throughout the CPZ debacle.

Rahrahrah - I am not sure you can possibly equate people cycling over Blackfriars bridge to be the likely outcome in Dulwich Village. We have all seen the flocks of cyclists - many of them MAMIL's - bombing in and out of London during the rush hour and this is to be commended and welcomed but I would ask how many of those were driving that route previously or whether, as more likely, they were train and tube commuters who decided to get a bit of exercise to and from work?

Rahrahrah, is not the closing of the whole of one side of Dulwich Village to through traffic not ever-so slightly disproportionate...I know you are a big fan of cycling and walking everywhere but surely you must be able to realise that these proposals are nonsensical and will do nothing to solve the problem but make matters worse and create gridlock elsewhere? There is a reason why people use that intersection and it is not because they want to - it is because they have to. Not every car journey is a pointless journey and many are by necessity because people cannot cycle or walk - unfortunately the cycle and pedestrian utopia many dream of will never exist because life has changed and people are living further and further away from the places that they work, educate and play in. By closing sections of a city to road users who happen to be in cars doesn't help the problem - it makes matters worse. That traffic will go somewhere - it won't just magically disappear - nor will people stop using their cars on the basis of this - they will just find another route. That's what happened with Loughborough junction and it is what will happen here.

I like the way the council highlights Village Books at the epicentre of the new schematic - has anyone asked them for their opinion?!

Goodness me...these plans are as bad as the Loughborough Junction debacle initiated by Lambeth - will these councils ever learn? And for those of you unfamiliar with the Loughborough Junction mess read this (it will all be such a familiar process for those who watched the ED CPZ unfold): https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/motors/crunch-day-looms-over-traffic-experiment-a3107976.html Let's be honest, the problems experienced by Dulwich Village have been caused, in large part, by the improvement works the council carried out which have made the area more congested, more polluted and more dangerous for all road users and pedestrians. It seems that they plan to cut the area off from car access to completely rectify the problem that was of their making. As Lambeth learnt with Loughborough Junction - just shutting off one area to vehicular access does not solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else and Lambeth had to relent and remove the measures - but only after significant political pressure put on them by their own party HQ. The same will happen here - the impact to the wider area will be huge. But as we know from all of our experiences with the CPZ the council will power through with this initiative regardless of what the local people actually say or want. They will take testimony from a few of the local residents around Eynella, who will no doubt think this is a fabulous idea, ignore the views of the masses and come to the conclusion that they know what is best for us. They will suggest that due to traffic displacement the scheme must be extended to Melbourne Grove, Burbage and Turney and they will create a no traffic island that will mean anyone living or going about their business either side of it will be massively impacted. Lordship Lane and the surrounding roads will become even more congested and gridlocked. The fact such a thing is even being presented shows just how out of touch Southwark is and the disdain with which they hold anyone living in the area. When are the next local council elections......?

This issue has little to do with police numbers - the catalyst is the fact that school children now carry phones and high-worth items and are seen as easy prey by the muggers. Even in the halcyon days of booming police numbers you could still get mugged and there wasn't a police officer on every street. The difference is of course during those days the mugger would end-up with one piece of Hubba Bubba chewing gum, a Pepe keyring and an old bus ticket rather than an iphone, air pods etc....

Abe - spot on. If memory serves me rightly the last council accounts showed a ?6m+ surplus from CPZs, car parks and parking fines which was re-invested in roads. Those who campaigned hard for the CPZ got their wish - very much at the expense of everyone else - the numbers for and against in the consultation speak for themselves and we are all smart enough to see how the council "adapted" the consultation to fit their objectives. Hurrah for the "winners". Unfortunately, we will all have to live with the consequences and I am sure those who thought they won will be amongst the first to bemoan the boarding up of shops along Lordship Lane and the loss of a unique local community.

We can but hope that David is waiting for the right moment......but he won't play his hand until the landscape within the Labour party has changed massively. Any moderate entering the fray will get wiped out with the current structure. How Labour didn't elect him leader is beyond belief - it was the beginning of the downfall. Corbyn peaked with 100,000 Islington'ites singing his name at Glastonbury - it has been steadily downhill from there. The fact his is still in the leader's seat after that humiliation and the fact the different factions are starting to take swings at each other is merely validating why a lot of people wouldn't/couldn't vote for him - the party is in complete disarray and I am not sure it is going to get fixed anytime soon.

And Dame Margrate Hodge has just said that Labour has beoome the nasty party (which let's admit it is something when you're running against the Tories). Momentum are blaming the media but they really need to look at themselves. The Marxist strategy may have been palatable for the born-again champagne socialists or the Socialist Worker wielding activists but was not at all palatable to many of the electorate. Of course Brexit played a part but only because Labour failed to determine a clear strategy. Labour has neglected its grass roots and now has some difficult decisions to make. I, for one, hope they abandon the hard-left angry politics and rhetoric and return to the centre-ground - Momentum has, unceremoniously, ground to a halt and the party needs to rid itself of them. The fact that the last-time Labour had such a hard-left position was in 1983 and they have just done worse than even Michael Foot ought to speak volumes. The party needs to change or it will die.

The first results aren?t even in yet and Labour sources are calling for Corbyn?s head saying this is all down to him and his cronies. If this is even half close to accurate it is worse than 83. This country was ripe for change after years of terrible Tory rule and Labour dropped the ball massively - I hope they learn their lesson and return to a more centre-left electable position.

I think Corbyn has to resign if he loses (you can't lose two elections and continue to lead) and I very much hope it allows the more moderate wings of the party to re-take control and give us a Labour party that is much more electable. Of course, this may all be a moot point if he is successful tonight but I cannot help but wonder if there was different leader of the Labour party who wasn't so divisive that they would have romped home with this election.

Failing to address the rampant anti-Semitism within the party. The divisive anyone with wealth is evil rhetoric. The spin over the NHS and Trump. The lies (even over something as straight-forward as whether Jeremy watches the Queen's speech) The origins of the leaked documents. The costed yet un-costed manifesto. The doctoring of videos to misrepresent the views of others (yes, Labour did it too) The use of a 4 year old boy as a political football The blatant attempts to try and bribe elements of the electorate with "free stuff". The constant attacks on any media that they don't think is toeing the line or dares to question what or how they are trying to do it. The holier than tho attitude when their own house is not in order The endless virtue-signalling Need I go on? And do not, for one second, think I am somehow defending the Tories, I am not, they have run a gutter campaign too. The reason many people are struggling with this election is because they are torn between voting for Boris and his ultra right-wing cronies or Jeremy and his ultra-left wing cronies and many people, unless they are wearing blue or rouge (;-)) tinted glasses, really don't want to have to vote for either or want either at the helm of the country.

I think the propaganda about the NHS was dropped because 1) it was categorically dismissed, in no uncertain terms, by the Tories and Corbyn couldn't flog a dead horse (the 4 year old hospital picture was well timed to do that) and 2) the suggestions are it had been sourced by Russians with links to the Russian Intelligence community. It quickly became a hot potato that Corbyn needed to drop. Whatever happens in this election I very much hope that the losing party distances itself from the divisive, hate-laden rhetoric that we have seen from both sides and we see one of the big two parties positively position itself more centrally so people can vote for someone with a clear conscience. Both parties have been scraping the bottom of the barrel over the last few weeks and can't say either of them ran a campaign they should be proud of.

Seabag - to be fair, a lot of people think this all started when Labour elected Ed rather than David to the leadership role which gifted the Tories the election in 2015....if David had been elected it all could have all turned out oh so differently....

Security seems to be high on the agenda today and I suggest the Captain Marvel message (which has been pushed widely online) is part of a coordinated programme, timed after the release of the Ashworth leak to further discredit Corbyn for his association with terrorist organisations. Today also saw an advert from 15 ex-Labour MPs (calling themselves Mainstream and no doubt positioning themselves as the Momentum and Corbynista replacements) urging Labour voters not to vote for Corbyn based on his record on anti-Semitism and extremism and security concerns. This has dragged up the warnings from the ex-head of MI6 who has said that Corbyn would not have been afforded national security clearance in any other position than prime minister (due to his links with terrorist organisations) as MI6 cannot refuse clearance for a prime minister. Whatever happens tomorrow politics has changed for the worse and it is no longer about policies or what you will do for the country but how much dirt you can dig up on your opponent, undeliverable soundbites to appeal to the masses and how you can get the media and social media to influence the population - and despite what you may hear both sides are a guilty as the other for fully embracing these underhand tactics.

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.