Penguin68

Represent her constituents concerns to the relevant authorities or companies. It's what MPs do to assist their constituents and it's why they hold surgeries. Most of what MPs do locally is nothing to do with new legislation (or indeed foreign policy issues), but about sorting local problems or more accurately reminding 'people' that MPs are watching over their shoulders.

This is the relevant passage, I believe "Southwark Council (Peckham Rye, Burgess Park, Southwark Park) will earn a projected £440,000 from events in its parks in 2025, up from £340,000 in 2024. Events include GALA Festival in Peckham Rye, August’s Boiler Room, Jazz Café and Maiden Voyage in Burgess Park, and RALLY festival in Southwark Park." What would of course be interesting to know is what they spend this on. Is there any transferred benefit to those local people who live around and use these facilities? But I wouldn't hold your breath for an answer.

Actually so long as no work is being done, and mostly it isn't being done, the only cost is to business and the general public is extending the costs of disruption. And it's mainly TFL who are bearing what build costs there are, I believe. And why should anyone in administration of public works care about the cost to the economy of extended public works? No skin off their wallets. Southwark certainly doesn't care about disruption to the general public and businesses, they still get their taxes paid.

Most of the shops in LL have too small a footprint. That's why we have so few chains. That won't change quickly.

The Council is making use of land which is intended for the use of Southwark residents (rate payers) as a general amenity. In doing so it is removing the rights of Southwark residents for a period of time from land which is (if not legally) 'common'. Whilst it can do that in order to undertake e.g. remedial works for the benefit of residents this is, in this instance, not the case. The least, I believe we have a right to, is information on what costs the council has incurred to act as a short term landlord to a commercial company (acting as a leasing agent), what costs the council has incurred in land management costs in preparing and recovering the land after use, what revenues it has obtained acting as such a landlord, what ends has the net revenue been put to. Without this information it is impossible for the Council's employers (us) to determine whether we have got value for money in these transactions - considering what we have had to give up to gain this. At the least we need to know - was this - on a whole life cost basis - profitable; how profitable and how were these profits deployed? And another question (which we will not get an answer to) - why is the council so intent on keeping all this secret? Commercial confidentiality only goes so far. The idea that Gala wants to keep it secret in case someone else offers more - well maybe - but if this is about monetising our parks - maybe we'd like the council to get more. The idea that the council is hiding information in case it gets a better offer is simply insane. If this is how they 'monetise' things... ! They set the rules under which they are prepared to trade away our use of our parks - maybe Gala does want what they pay kept secret - in which case maybe don't do business with them. Indeed, if you're going into the business of being a venue entrepreneur perhaps employ people who are skilled in that business and not apparatchiks whose skill is in running councils, not venues.

I suspect that the council's deal may be based on a percentage of the gate take - as an example - but we want the actual sum paid and do not need to know the basis on which calculations were made. This is thus not very commercially sensitive as it discloses no information about the private company finances, other I suppose than one of its costs. As the council is obliged to disclose its sources of finance this shouldn't be an issue. I suspect they are simply using this as an excuse to keep their own actions secret, which they are not meant to do. They may be worried that the sum 'earned' may be quite paltry and not commensurate with the cost to the community, including costs incurred by the council in doing this at all.

The Cooperative Movement and how it manifests locally do not always seem wholly aligned.

Well, there's a first time for anything, but transparency has, in my experience, never been their watch word. Secrecy and obfuscation however...

To be fair, the problem they are trying to fix is a cap on their taxation scope and central government underfunding. Using CPZ revenues is of course against the law, these are meant simply to cover the cost of the CPZ scheme, but that doesn't worry them. Oh, and they hate private ownership of 4 wheeled transport.

I would say 'only when it's good'. It's not like a football team.

Because that has been the custom in this country, and hence the law (because there is no law requiring otherwise). We are not charged to ride bicycles on public roads, or to walk on public pavements- are you suggesting that these too should now be monetised? I can also access (Gala notwithstanding) public parks for free - should these also be charged for? Just because you could, or in some cases can, charge for the use of things in this country doesn't mean you should. The law says that you can introduce CPZs where there is parking pressure and if the the residents (broady) concur. It does not say you can introduce CPZs as a money raising scheme or because they exist in other parts of your borough (where, explicitly, there is parking pressure). I do recognise that councils round here, and their cheerleaders, have contempt for the law, but that is not something I share.

If the argument was 'all councils are bad' that would be clearly true, but as much of the debate has been about 'once a council is elected, what it does is right and mandated' I think there is greater merit in using this as a debating point.

So the wonderfully vibrant pedestrianised and traffic restricted area has now 3,or is it more, closed outlets. This whole redesign has been such a commercial benefit to the area. The cheerleaders must be so proud of the council's contribution to the local economy.

But maybe the poster either had other things to do earlier, or didnt want to arrive too early for whatever they had to do. That is why people often don't use public transport, it isn't reliable enough to plan your day.

I think Monday. The plan to seal off East Dulwich before the tanks move in is almost complete. No doubt the cheerleaders for Southwark's exemplary planning and roads departments will be out in force to peal joy and encouragement.

Monday I think. Just adds to all the fun and so well timed. Why just have annoyance when misery could be in play?

Didn't engage him in conversation but I think he was just 'collecting' for a 'charity' - without ID or anything else. Something to do with rehabilitation. They don't seem to bother with dusters. Which is probably a blessing.

In Underhill, guy starts his speil on the doorstep, 'I'm not a criminal' - yes, they're back. Just a heads up, I said 'nothing at the door' and he went away OK, but maybe not if I was a little old lady. Be alert.

Well, that was good enough for Athens, the birthplace of democracy...

Actually that isn't true. Firstly if you can only hold anybody to account in one period of less than a day every three years that isn't, really, holding anyone to account, particularly considering the wide range of different things you might want to hold the body to account for (and, additionally, because you are voting on future promises as well as, or sometimes instead of, past performance) , and secondly because we have a process of law which exactly allows individuals and bodies additionally to call into account the actions of others, including corporate and public bodies. Which happened in Lambeth regarding Brockwell Park and West Dulwich.

As this happened co-terminally with the introduction first of the ultra low emissions zone to the South Circular and then the M25 I think there were other factors in play (as there were the Covid restrictions at the start of the Dulwich LTN) But remember that car ownership in Southwark is influenced by the fact that in the Old Borough of Southwark there are a plethora buses, tubes and trains to choose from, and very flat topology to cycle on (and things are closer together to the north of the borough) - in the old Borough of Camberwell however, there are no tubes, fewer trains and fewer buses and many fewer (and less frequent) East West travel opportunities - so LTNs in the south of the borough are more likely to have as a population more people with cars, of simple necessity. Oh, and the comment I was responding to was not Southwark specific anyway.

Close to 80% of UK households own at least one car - LTNs discriminate as much against all electric cars as they do 'petrol' (not forgetting diesel) cars. The idea that the vast majority of households, all of which are impacted by LTNs in one way or another and may object to that are by definition leader in a Culture War is frankly absurd. [If you add in those households who are dependent on the use of privately owned vehicles to provide services, allow visitors etc, even where that household is not car owning itself you probably get close to 100% of households (of those near LTNs) who may be adversely impacted - not to mention those living or using streets which have had increased traffic as a result of LTNs]. It is a very Trumpian response to suggest that people who disagree with you are morally bad. - But I may as well since it's the custom in these debates!

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/what-next-for-brockwell-live-and-the-lambeth-country-show-high-court-ruling-throws-lambeths-festival-plans-into-chaos/ Interesting report

Nothing, or next to nothing. This will be scheduled for their convenience, not yours. There will be a lot of 'No action' day after day. As occasional work teams arrive and go. They will make sure they are not paying for overtime or weekend working. The amount of actual work will probably be a third or a half of the lapsed time of the 'work'.

Maybe it's being moved to us now they've had that spot of bother