dc

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi dc, > From memory that was 59 offences per 1,000 thousand population. No - it was just 59 notifiable offences pure and simple. In March 2010. In East Dulwich ward.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mad Hattie is not throwing her hat in the ring Can you please stop using this epithet? It's pathetic and unpleasant - quite apart from the unacceptable use of 'mad' as a throwaway pejorative term.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 12 month period ending 31 March 2010. Met produce this rolling 12 months figure every month. The figures referred to in the spreadsheet you attached were for one months's figures = 59 notifiable offences in East Dulwich ward. That isn't the rolling annual figure for East Dulwich it's for March 2010 alone. Still low though. Interesting stuff here: Crime Mapping (using the 'text view' tab to the top right makes it easier to navigate and you can access more data more easily). It looks like the numbers may not have caught up entirely as it shows ED with 80 offences and ranked fifth highest in Southwark behind inter alia neighbouring South Camberwell, Peckham Rye and College wards. I think that is for the February 2010 figure (80 offences) though, not the March one (59 offences).

Don't forget that there will also be the East London Line (Phase 2b) extension running 4 trains in each direction through Denmark Hill from the first half of 2012. So no, it's not closing - far from it with ?20m odd investment going into the station alone but there are undoubtedly some issues to be fought over re the South London Line services (Victoria to London Bridge) in the years ahaed.

Haha - I'm not 'Cllr' Chapman nor a 'leading local politician'. For what it's worth AV plus would be my tipple - retains the constituency link and means every vote counts.

Um, excuse me Cllr Barber but aren't your guys in charge now? Who are you going to take parliament back from exactly - yourselves?

I think BP will pay for every cent of any costs incurred - and have stated as much publicly.

Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What period are the crime stats for? The previous X months? Or the previous year? March 2010

To be fair, as the person who raised the IRA issue, Cllr Barber has clarified his position. It's certainly the case that Clegg and Cameron had a little less far to travel politically in seeing eye to eye than Gerry Adams and the Rev Ian Paisley! Maybe nobody is interested in the second leg of my point above but I am very uncomfortable with the fact that a 55% majority will be required in parliament for a vote of no-confidence to succeed. That seems contrary to every principle of democracy - a sort of first past the unaccountably moved post.

Two things - one a quick question. Why does Cllr Barber refer to Sinn Fein as the 'IRA'. I hope this was just an unintended slip? On the substance of the agreement I support a fixed term although 4 years seems more appropriate than 5 (local elections, GLA, Scotland, Wales etc all have 4 year terms and 5 year parliamentary terms are often seen as over-stretching - 1974-79, 1992-97 and 2005-10). That's an argument to be had and I understand there will be differing views. More importantly, where is the democratic legitimacy for a government that fails to command the confidence of the House of Commons requiring a 55% vote to oust it? I just don't understand the reasoning there. Currently of course a majority of 1 is enough. Duncan Chapman

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only it might be an idea to adjust your tone, if you do! 'Tone' in prose writing is very much in the eye of the beholder - and that's the problem given that tone is an auditory phenomenon. I can see nothing wrong with Gavin's post. He makes a reasonable point in a reasonable manner. Of course, the use of phrases such as 'hectoring b*stards' does clarify the implied and inferred tone of a post.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh is that right...are you realted to Harriet Harman? You have her lecturing, patronising tone to a tee Typical EDF - why not play the ball instead of the man for a change? We get that you didn't like the result but Gavin's post makes a perfectly reasonable point in an entirely reasonable manner. Anyway, fwiw I think the results show that many people were voting locally - the result in Village for instance where ex-Tory now LibDem Robin C-H topped the poll with two Tories in 2nd and 3rd; East Dulwich where the Libs were soundly beaten by Labour in the GLA elections in 2008 but came back with a 'robust' local campaign over the past few months; and College too, where Labour won two seats but Tory Cllr Lewis Robinson held on - a testament to the hard work he has put in over the years. It does seem strange to effectively bemoan a high turnout given the wringing of hands over a supposed lack of interest in politics in the run up to these elections. 74% turnout in Village, 71% in East Dulwich and 68% in College seem like a good cause for celebration to me. Duncan Chapman - Village Labour

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will be interesting for those living in College ward as the two elected Labour councillors were paper candidates never > expecting to be elected. I'm sure their colleagues will support them. Given that one of them is Andy Simmons who was Tessa's election agent and, before standing down in 2006, had previously been a councillor for eight years, I wouldn't be too worried about the lack of experience in the Labour team in College (which includes a chunk of East Dulwich btw). Andy is an absolute legend and one of the many reasons why Tessa increased her majority locally, and Labour increased its number of councillors from 8 to 15 across Dulwich and West Norwood. He was a brillant local councillor as I'm sure College ward residents will quickly discover. And Helen Hayes will be excellent too.

Separate.

bil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i hope ED stays under lib dem (please don't let labour take over and destroy us) Quick question. How old are you?

I was a Labour candidate in Village ward and can confirm that we established that there were paid deliveries made on behalf of the Lib Dems. It was clear which were done in this way because the distributors were carrying bags with "Letterbox Marketing - 020 8940 0666" printed on them. They were happy to volunteer their rate of pay - which was exactly the same as davidh reported at the top of this thread. Not sure why davidh got so much stick just for pointing out a straightforward fact. Maybe now that the election is behind us there might be a more considered take on this issue? Duncan Chapman

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If dc's figures are right (see above) then that means Labour has a majority of 4 in the council. Sorry Townleygreen, I am afraid you misunderstood. The extra Labour Councillor in Chaucer takes Labour to 35, LD to 25 and T to 3 - an overall majority of 7 for Labour. Good news.

Was at the count tonight. With one ward still to declare Labour had an overall majority of five on Southwark Council. Possible that this could increase to seven after a recount in Chaucer ward.

Haha. That's a tortuous argument reaching an erroneous conclusion. I think the actual point that Labour is making is that non Tory voters should vote Labour. I don't think they're in the business of encouraging anyone to vote Tory! Remember, the figures I provided above are the only ones representing actual votes on the new boundaries - not notional or projected figures. Duncan Chapman

There have been two elections since the last General Election in 2005 that have been fought on precisely the same boundaries as those that will be in place for the election on Thursday and for which we have detailed results down to a ward, and thereby, constituency, level. Stripping down the results to the three 'main' parties the distribution of votes was as follows: Local Elections 2006 Labour 39.8% Tory 35.0% LibDem 25.2% GLA Elections 2008 (Constituency Candidate) Labour 48.5% Tory 30.6% LibDem 20.9% Duncan Chapman

For what it's worth - and I think the answer is 'not very much' - Andrew Gowers, who has been popping up on the news as BP's head of media is the ex Editor of the FT , author of 'The Gowers Report on Intellectual Property' and a local resident. I did warn you it wasn't worth waiting for!

Mind you quids, Amina Graham appears to have joined the Forum with the almost sole purpose of plugging the Lib Dems and we now learn that Amina is, miraculously, 'now backing the Lib Dem candidate'. Hardly a Damascene conversion was it Amina? Agree with quids on this approach - pathetic. Bang on about politics if you want but just be open and honest about where you're coming from - you'll soon find out that people on here aren't stupid. And to that end in the interests of transparency, as a long-term if not prolific poster to the Forum, I have, wherever relevant to my postings, and especially since being selected as a candidate, given my full name and have also stated plainly on the Forum that I am standing for Labour in Village ward. Duncan Chapman

The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported (7/4/10) that ?The tax and benefit measures implemented by Labour since 1997 have increased the incomes of poorer households and reduced those of richer ones, largely halting the rapid rise in income inequality we saw under the Conservatives.? IFS Analysis There is also an authoritative report from the OECD that states: "Since 2000, income inequality and poverty have fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other OECD country. However, the gap between the rich and poor is still greater in the UK than in three quarters of OECD countries. OECD Report - Growing Unequal? The problem of course is the massive explosion in inequality during the 80s. It's a lazy mantra to say inequality has widened under Labour when the reality is that it has clearly performed exceptionally well - especially when compared to the rest - and has at least addressed the issue as a pressing problem rather than encouraging it as the Tories did. Duncan Chapman

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since the LDs lost control in Lambeth Labour Party seem to have made a bigger hash of managing the borough Palpable and demonstrable nonsense. Lambeth has, according to the independent Audit Commission, gone from being a 1 star 'performing poorly' borough under the Tory/Lib Dems to a 3 star 'performing well' borough since Labour were elected in 2006. Southwark meanwhile has gone backwards to become the worst rated borough in inner London. These are independent assessments carefully made and therefore much more relevant than anecdotal, ill-informed, unresearched, title tattle. Oh and, by the way, there are no plans to run Southwark services from 'Brixton' (sic) Town Hall. It's made up by the LibDems who are relying on you having the same misplaced prejudice against Lambeth as Pugwash. Duncan Chapman

deleted