Earl Aelfheah

I have already said that I don’t think these consultation exercises are particularly helpful. But it’s pointless criticising them on the grounds that they make for a bad referendum. Well they have dropped some plans and made changes to others on the basis of consultation responses. I agree that they haven’t treated their consultation exercises as referenda.

There are good reasons why we don’t just ask the people what they want on every topic. Again, this is a different discussion about the pros and cons of different democratic systems, suffice to say, a local consultation is not intended to be a referendum.

Having elected representatives who then make decisions on behalf of the electorate is our entire system of government. We do not live in a dictatorship. Influencing decisions, not making them. A consultation is not a vote. It is not a referendum. The council may decide for example that it’s important to prioritise the needs of a minority, or to pursue an unpopular initiative in pursuit of a wider policy aim. There are many good reasons why we don’t live in a direct democracy, which I’ll happily debate if you want to start a thread on it.

They don't need to 'manipulate the process'. Again, you're misunderstanding the point of the consultation. It's not for the public to vote on the outcome. It's for the council to solicit a broad range of views to consider before they make a decision. Again, it is not a referendum. The problem with the current approach to consultation is that it does not solicit a broad range of views. It attracts the views of those who are most exercised by an issue - usually in opposition to a proposed change. That's why market research which canvases opinions from a representative sample of residents is probably more helpful in terms of consultation (getting input from people with different interests / views). Referenda are not good when it comes to local change, because they would invariably lead to no change at all. Ever.

If you want a discussion about the pros and cons of representative democracy vs direct democracy that's fine, but a different conversation. We do not live in a direct democracy. A consultation exercise is not a referendum and is not intended to be a vote. These are just facts. If you did want to change our entire system of local government to one of direct democracy (where referenda are held on every local matter), you would not run them in the same way as these consultation exercises.

A consultation is not meant to be a yes / no vote. As you say Penguin68, that would be a referendum, not a consultation. We live in a representative democracy. There are very good reasons for this.

Glad you welcome their introduction. Something we can agree is a positive / necessary change.

Just to clarify, the judge upheld the claim on 1 of the 3 grounds: It found that Lambeth didn't demonstrate they'd adequately considered a 53 page presentation, before making their decision. The nonsense of this process of course, is had they shown that they'd considered it, they could still have reached the same decision quite lawfully. No it's not. Have you actually read the judgement? Again, to clarify, in a representative democracy, citizens elect representatives who then make decisions on their behalf. In contrast, a direct democracy involves citizens directly participating in making decisions, often through referendums. A consultation is NOT a referendum.

That's not remotely like a referendum. Yes it's the same point you repeatedly make based on the false premise / incorrect assertion that a consultation is the same as a referendum. A consultation is about giving people an opportunity to voice their views. But it isn't a vote. Ultimately the council will still make the decision. We're a representative democracy. And my point is that as a tool for gathering views from a representative cross section of the community, getting feedback from a self selecting sample of (generally) the most angry people, is not very effective. He absolutely did not say this, nor imply this in any way.

Great to see SUDS (sustainable drainage systems) going in. There was a torrential downpour in central London yesterday (don't think it made it to ED). Flooded the road outside St Pancras. We're going to need more of this as the climate changes and weather events get more extreme.

They’re not referendums. This is contradictory. If they ignore the outcome, they clearly do not base decisions on them, or treat them as a referendum Yes, my point exactly. Seeking the views of a self selecting sample of the most vociferous opponents isn’t very enlightening as to what the broader community actually want.

The council should canvas the views of a cross section of the community. These online consultations are not remotely helpful. It would keep the council a lot more honest. You can ignore a self selecting sample of people opposed to a change and who've rallied responses to an online form; but you can't so easily ignore a targeted and representative sample of the whole community. Why they don't use the same standards as basic market research firms I don't understand.

The main opponents won't. But if you have representation from across the wider community, then their's is not the only voice to be heard. At the very least, they should swap online forms, for targeted market research, using a representative sample of the local community.

The citizens jury approach involves a representative sample of the community, who can call experts and consider a wide range of evidence. It's a facilitated discussion, which tries to get a proper view of what a broad range of residents want. The result is a set of recommendations which are used to inform policy. It's a better method (imo), of simply inviting feedback from those with the strongest views, (who usually vociferously oppose change). Inevitably the latter results in an unrepresentative view of local opinion, which then has to be balanced with data, expert opinion etc, and those who have self selected to the consultation get upset because it's not the referendum they imagined. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Citizens' Jury Report Accessible.pdf

There used to be one where Gails is. I think a new indoor market would be great personally!

Personally, I would love to see changes to how these consultation processes are run. As I've said before, I don't think they're remotely constructive and tend to please no one. They're also skewed towards people with the strongest views (usually those who vociferously oppose change). A better way might involve some sort of representative sampling, focus groups and expert advice. The community stakeholder panels, and citizen jury approaches seem to have worked really well where they've been used.

Can anyone hear buzzing?

The idea that Reform are appealing primarily to working class voters in the north, is not born out in research undertaken by Legatum. It suggests that their voters are overwhelmingly older, more affluent (AB, C1/2), ex Conservative voters, from 'non-London South'. Primary concerns are immigration followed by opposition to green policies and social progress. They mainly seem to made up of the same angry old home county types who have ensured a rarely interrupted string of Tory governments for many decades. Don't know whether that research is to be believed or not, but interesting if true and very at odds with the narrative Reform are spinning.

Trump wants to make us the 51st state. Happy Friday ☀️ I pronounce it to rhyme with 'hunt'

So the judgment is in - they've rejected two of the three grounds for the claim, but upheld one. In summary, Lambeth's consultation was inadequate https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fh51LzWC7DQHArYoJrnnzoeKSWqp39Aj/view?pli=1 From my quick perusal of the judgment, it appears to have come down to the council's failure to take adequate account of a 53 page presentation submitted by the complainant (WDAG). Not sure what this actually means for the trial currently in place. Lambeth have said they'll continue with it whilst they seek further clarification / direction from the court I believe.

You think efforts should be made to ensure public spaces in Peckham are ugly because it's 'more in keeping with the area'?! Dare I say that this is pretty disparaging towards the people you seem to think you're standing up for. Basically, less affluent people can't be trusted with nice things. Personally think it's great that there is going to be investment in improving the public realm and making the station more accessible. Why should only the wealthier parts of Southwark get funding for this kind of stuff?

I think it's just you

The King's Cross changes involved the creation of lot's of high end / expensive, private residences. This is an improvement to a train station. It's not really a comparable project either in nature or scale.

For those who haven't clicked on the link: ...the improvements do include lift access to all platforms

Oh OK. I do use Peckham Rye station regularly, and couldn't picture any lifts, so that explains it. Are you sure that there is nothing in the new plans to reinstate lift access? The plans to open up the front of the station feels like a good news story. There does seem to be a general objection to any public realm improvements locally, which I just find weird.