Rockets

What's happening though because exactly the same article Peter Walker penned in 2021 claimed accidents in LTNs were being halved...? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows It must be frustrating that Peter Walker is the only journalist who now covers these "news" stories...clearly him always getting the "exclusive" is killing the newsworthiness of the stories for everyone else...;-)

Alternatively, LTN propaganda derived from statistical jiggery pokery (interesting the link takes you to a summary of the report and the actual report is not available) given as an "exclusive " to an active travel activist journalist who will give the story the nice ride the report authors want. A report co-authored by someone caught tearing down anti-LTN posters in her local shop. Yup, and I am the one in a dark rabbit hole....;-)

Peter Walker "exclusive" Bleedingly obvious conclusion Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman authored File accordingly... P.S. is anyone else kind of surprised to still see Anna Goodman being quoted as a co-author of these, ahem, impartial, reports 😉

Yes I wasn't taking issue with what Chris Whitty said just laughing at the irony of Peter Walker writing about those stoking "culture wars"!

Dulwich is encircled again by road'works! It's got so bad even Margy is irate:

And outside JAGS tonight as well.

I do also laugh when I see a "culture-war" article penned by Peter Walker......he's never done anything to stoke the culture war....;-)

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/cyclists-fines-jumping-red-lights-city-of-london-b1236074.html I am not sure this can come as a surprise to anyone who witnesses cycle behaviour in London. Of course some claim there isn't a problem but these stats from the police and Lime would suggest otherwise. 52% of respondents admitted to jumping red lights with 16% say they do it regularly. Interesting that Lime feel compelled to launch a campaign called "Respect the Red". Clearly a big issue.

No, he was utterly un-electable. Any sensible, non-Momentum, Labour member knew this. Corbyn likes to blame the press but that is the far-left modus operandi - find someone else to blame when the problem lies at your doorstep. I know someone who was on his team and they convinced themselves that they had won on the basis of social media. He was a disaster for the party and only Covid and the incompetence of the Tories allowed Labour to recover. Corbyn was on Newsnight last night clearly putting himself back on the circuit in the hope of a Starmer downfall. This is why Labour HQ does not want McAsh leading the council - they are trying to purge the party of the far-left due to the damage they have done to it and I believe any swing to a more far-left leadership in Labour HQ would be an unmitigated disaster and just be rolling out the red-carpet for Farage. But the far-left won't care they see another opportunity to take over after they fumbled the ball massively in 2019.

Agree but Labour made a far worse start and the wheels seem to be falling off spectacularly quickly. Whatever the reason for Reeves' tears it made the markets very jittery and now there is real doubt about how much longer she will last but Starmer cannot afford to lose her - I think they are both toast and the likes of Rayner and Streeting will be licking their chops. A bit like what is happening with Cllr McAsh locally the internal politics of the Labour party always are the real driver of policy, direction and execution and for a government with such a huge majority to be struggling so much so early is really worrying. We should all be very scared because this is paving the way for Reform and a leadership challenge or swing to the farther-left within Labour would be an unmitigated disaster - we had another term of Boris because the country hated Corbyn and his far-left ideology and the far-left Labour may see a leadership challenge as their only feasible way to take the reigns - a bit like Cllr McAsh and his Momentum buddies.

Clearly Labour HQ doesn't fancy having McAsh leading the council and have found a get out....a technicality that they are using to their advantage. What's that saying about reaping what you sow....I bet Cllr Williams is having a chuckle to himself right now.. The only thing you can rely on is politics is that the far-left will always self sabotage and self-destruct....

The wheels do seem to be falling off for this government very quickly and my worry is that the far-left of Labour will be licking their chops and will try to force a leadership change and all that will do is pave the way for Reform (always interesting at these times to see who is not putting themselves forward and happy to slip into the shadows from the cabinet). Scary ,scary times. Starmer has got to get a grip but his leadership and cabinet are being undermined every single day. One year in - what a mess - didn't Starmer tell us they had been preparing for 14 years for this - clearly they needed more time?

But we have to remember the jumper incident is actually a badge of honour for those on the left and the person he overthrew actually liked that Christmas post! Cllr McAsh has already had more than his fair share of run-ins with the right-wing press after he got a lot of coverage in the Mail after he called on people on social media to intercept an immigration raid in Peckham. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10908569/ringleaders-Peckham-mob-forced-border-cops-release-suspect-include-Marxist-teacher.html I did feel sorry for him for that Mail article as it is an awful rag but, again, in some circles probably considered a badge of honour.

Clearly 72% of the residents in the consultation area said "no". No two ways about it - the overwhelming majority said no. To get what they wanted the council then went down to street level, after running an area consultation, to make street-by-street decisions and treat the positive responses as a referendum for that street. They are quite happy to make it a referendum for the streets but a consultation for the area.....hmmm, they seem to be moving the goalposts a bit....what a surprise.

@Dogkennelhillbilly he was actually born James Ashworth-McLintock... One wonders of his past will come back to haunt him as leader. An interesting appointment by the Labour councillors and one Labour HQ will no doubt be keeping a keen eye on. According to the Lib Dems: McAsh voted to keep the two child benefit cap, refused to call out brutal welfare cuts, and backed Rachel Reeves’ winter fuel payments cut.

@Earl AelfheahIt is also classed as a leadership challenge in most people's political books.. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/exclusive-southwark-council-leader-expected-to-face-leadership-challenge/ Does anyone know, I presume Cllr McAsh has to retain his seat at the next election to continue as leader? Didn't he start as a councillor for the Green Party, or am I imagining that?

He had a go about a year ago: https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/exclusive-council-leader-sees-off-challenge-by-five-votes/

Of course he was elected - he was plotting Cllr Williams' downfall for a long time. Does a leader have to hold a seat to retain office - I know he has a healthy majority but a swing based on discontent from CPZs etc at the next election could be interesting?

It's interesting as 72% of residents said they didn't want one and 60% of residents said they didn't want one if a neighbouring road had one - which is also quite telling. What the council are doing here is unforgivable and a lot of people are seeing through it for what it is. Maybe Cllr McCash is actually a very nice example of nominative determinism....

Yes and remember many years ago Cllr McAsh was out door-knocking with leaflets telling residents about the likely knock-on effects from the DV closures as part of his lobbying efforts. I am also reminded of when I overheard the councillors talking in a cafe in Dulwich when they talked about targeting "weak" Labour voters ahead of an election who they could "encourage" to support them. One wonders whether the council is relying on a base of Labour supporters to gerrymander their CPZs in...

The interesting thing about that article is Imperial College commenting on it because the source of the data supposedly comes from Breathe London which is a monitoring group set-up by.....wait for it......Imperial College.... And when you go onto the Breathe London site there is a map showing their monitoring locations and I can't find one anywhere near the area the increase is supposed to have been seen. Does anyone know how they came to this number?

The consultation was an area consultation and run as such. Surely the area has decided they do not want a CPZ? You know this makes a mockery of those who spout the council narrative that "a consultation is not a referendum". It very much seems that it is a referendum for individual streets should they say yes..... Those who defend the council for this devious approach are very much part of the problem. 72% of the people within the consultation area said no. Three steets managed to garner slime majorities of support yet 100% of the people within the streets will be impacted. Welcome to Southwark democracy.

@march46 only if you are prepared to parrot the council's weak spin to justify their approach. 72% said no...that is a fact. Another fact is that the council, once again, are shoe horning CPZs in against the will of the majority knowing full well that there will be increased parking pressure created by them. The council consults as an area but issues on a street by street basis...that's the very definition of dividing and conquering. More devious behaviour from our democratically elected officials making a mockery of the office they hold. I hope people remember this come May next year....

I see just 72% of residents opposed the measures....but it wasn't a referendum was it....good grief this council.

And really, does suggesting a pedestrian crossing over the cycle track qualify as relitigating a decision made years ago? Or is this a case of choosing a narrative to suit a specific agenda - an agenda I hasten to add that appears to give no credence to any voice other than supporting ones.