Blah Blah

To be fair to Sue, she doesn't have to explain or justify why she supports or wants to vote for any party. That is the same for everyone. We are free to decide which party best reflects what we think is important to us. Discussing the stances/ policies of parties, in a general discussion, can be done without targetting anyone commenting here. Politics is just a point of view at the end of the day. Different things are important to different people, often for very valid reasons. Let's be respectful of that. My opinion is that if say the Labour Party wants to understand why it is losing supporters to the Greens, it needs to listen to and understand the reasons why. That theme has been explored in this thread a little through the discussion around councillor McAsh. The same is true of the Tories losing support to Reform and the Libdems. Let's not also assume that every member of every party is completely on board with every policy of the leadership of that party either. You only have to look at how backbenchers have forced u-turns from Starmer's cabinet on things like Welfare Reform and WFA to see that.

Yes they do, but that is not the core tenet of representative democracy. At that level, we are voting for a parliamentary representative, irregardless of whether parties exist or not. It's why candidates can stand as independents.

Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense). That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.

And that fair funding review is crucial if we are ever going to tackle the divide between London, and regions that have been in extended decline for some time. London has its fair share of deprivation - 1 in 25 according to data (the Southeast of the country is 1in 33) but has many avenues to money from wealth, higher band Council Tax revenue, etc. Go to say, the Northwest or North East, and deprivation there is 1 in 5. Councils struggle to just stay on top of essential services, which face higher demand proportionally because of that higher deprivation. That is why there needs to be some adjustment in funding, addressing need vs purely population size. So McAsh's objection to this make no sense for someone who was a member of the Labour Party and a Union activist.

Because the previous Libdem/Tory coalition council did so much better? ....Oh wait. Selling off the Heygate at a bargain price and reducing the number of council homes it replaced? Being in opposition is so much easier isn't it James. The point on allowances etc is a valid one, and that is about finding the right balance between the responsibility of those cabinet roles and the role of service that should underpin all political aspirations in an ideal world. Holding down a full time job, while having to attend meetings and then deal with case work on top, is a huge ask imo. People in key roles need to have the time needed to do those roles effectively, so some renumeration makes sense. It's just a question of where the balance should be. McAsh has walked away from that, so his convictions are doing more talking than careerism arguably. Worth pointing out that most MPs started out as party/ political activists/ campaigners on a local level. Different parties have different processes for selecting candidates, but everyone starts out at a low level.

The Greens are knocking on the door of Labour in a few wards, so yes, there is some voter swing in play from some local canvassing. Elected officials jumping ship is nothing new. Political careerism is also nothing new. On a local level, all candidates for election start as committed party political activists. That's how they get selected to stand. But politics is also a long game. Far better to stay and be part of any swing when it inevitably comes (as it always does), than to close the door altogether imo. I think James failing to become leader probably was the key factor in his decision, but leaving for another party effectively means there is no way back. Maybe he is going to work himself into the future leadership of the Greens instead. Time will tell. Edited to add that while I can understand why former Labour supporters feel disillusioned with the current government (both local and national), it's important to remember how bad things were under the last one and the coalition before it. It's going to take time for any government to rebuild the economy and pay down the national debt.

It looks like a tap for the gas lighting that used to be found in those homes. The little tap would regulate the flow of gas to give a brighter or dimmer lamp. It's probably not part of any gas feed now and you can check that for yourself by following the gas pipework from your meter (which should only run to the kitchen to supply a boiler and cooker). Next time you have your boiler serviced, ask the engineer to have a look for you.

Sure. He is ideological driven on many things. He was the person that defended the blanket CPZ policy because he believed that 'if you asked most people in southwark if all parking should be paid for, most would say yes'. A completely unfounded belief not backed by any evidence. In the real world, that policy caused significant local electoral damage for some councillors. I personally see his disillusion with the Labour Party as one of his idealism vs the reality of governance. He will probably be much happier with the Greens.

The problem with the first Southwark leadership election is that two proxy votes were cast, which is against Southwark's own party rules. So that is why the election was re-run. The controversy is in switching to an online as opposed to in person second election. James has causes he vehemently stands for, and it's fair enough if he thinks the local Labour Party is no longer for him. Government is not easy, and there are hard decisions to be made always. London councils have always had a better deal when it comes to central funding, and anyone who travels to the North frequently can see the stark difference. It's that failure to see the bigger picture that I find most surprising about his comments. Sure, as a local councillor he should be always arguing for local needs, but reform of central government funding to give more help to poorer regions has been a long held aim by this Labour Party, and especially since Brexit, where poorer regions benefitting from EU grants lost out. As always, it will be the public that decides at the ballot box.

Plus it is pure hypocrisy from the council, who pontificate about cleaner, greener, spaces, but then throw that out of the window for a bit of cash from a disruptive event. I will raise this with them. I will point out to them that whether their event takes place or not is of as little consequence too 😉 Because they are public servants paid for by our taxes. It's the whole reason FOI exists. We have a right to know certain things.

While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say. For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.

I went and will post a summary in morning. It was a farce. But the good that came out of it was the start of a physical petition and I will get started on a strategy group for an orgnised opposition to the extention. So watch this space and if anyone is interested in being part of that strategy group, please DM me.

100% agree and eloquently put. Trump's lawsuit will go nowhere. He can't sue in the UK as he is out of time and the bbc would have a case to countersue given all the times he has lied about the BBC. A court in Florida will have no jurisdiction in the UK and he would still have to prove malice and reputational damage. Well he won the elction so there's no argument on damage there. The program was not broadcast in the US, so very few if any people saw it. His entire speech is readily available to view elsewhere anyway. And on reputation, does he really want all the facts dragged out as you have listed them above? In what world does Trump thinks that leaves him with a good reputation that someone else could damage? It will go nowhere, like so many of his other lawsuits and court actions. The BBC should hold firm. A more curious question though is why the Telegraph waited until now to do their predictable mischief? Agreed. To downplay the state murder of a journalist, in an embassy on foreign soil of all places, because he was 'not liked' by a lot of people, is just ludicrous and offensive. Compare that to his narrative around the murder of Charlie Kirk, who was also not liked by a lot of people. Trump is playing his guest as always, but it shows just how morally spineless he really is.

Trying to get to the bottom of the confusion. The events team email, the council website and the letter we all got through the door, says the consultations are this evening. I went along yesterday because it looks as though word of mouth had sent some people there on the wrong day (myself included). So not an error by the council on the date, but definitely a problem in letting people register their interest in attending. Hopefully that clears things up.

That explains why no-one was there when I went yesterday. Something else to complain about this evening then, and given that at least one adjacent ward is having their Labour Party branch AGM this evening (the one Renata Hamvas belongs to), may well be raised in passing conversation there😉 .