Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear all


Cllrs Victoria Olisa, Charlie Smith and I have started an online newsletter. It will be monthly and it will include brief updates about what we three councillors have been doing on your behalf, and general notices about the council which we think particularly relevant.


You can sign up here: https://www.jamesmcash.com/newsletter (The form is embedded on my website here. For some reason the Forum will not let me link to it directly) (I've sorted the link - Admin)


Best wishes

James

Dear all


Thanks all for comments. Just to be clear, you do not need to sign into anything to access the newsletter: you just give us your email and it will be sent straight to your inbox.


I will also duplicate it on my website, and link to it on here too. The newsletter is just an option for whomever finds this more convenient.


And thanks for fixing my link Admin :)

Yes but you then pass that email address on to mailchimp "for processing"


I'm also quite surprised at the tone of your article "It's not about Jackie Walker". Don't you feel you should update or delete it now that she has been expelled from the Labour Party?

  • 10 months later...
James given you have now stated elsewhere that this website is ?a blog post which I sent to Labour Party members. Consequently, it makes lots of reference to things which will not interest non-party members.? and that numerous points have a party political nature, don?t you think it is an entirely inappropriate gateway for your constituents to receive your newsletter?

Hi both,


Abe_froeman - my website hosts a number of different things with different audiences in mind. There is the Goose Green newsletter, which is quite explicitly targeted at Goose Green residents, and a range of articles and blog posts written with different audiences in mind. None of it is a secret - hence being hosted on a public website - but different pieces are written with different audiences in mind. The blog post mentioned in the other threads was written with local Labour Party members in mind, and therefore includes points which are probably of less interest to non-party members. There's no harm in others reading it if they're interested, of course, but don't then be surprised if it included party-related matters!


first mate - There was no solution to this which would suit everyone. Both sides had very strong opinions and there was no solution which would have suited everyone. But we were able to reach a proposal which did the following:

- The CPZ would include 80% of roads which requested one.

- 90% of those who do not want a CPZ on their road would not have one.

- There would be no change to parking on the streets most used by visitors to Lordship Lane.


I think that this is a pretty good outcome. No perfect, but good.


Best wishes

James

But as you well know James, that methodology, dressed up as a fair approach, was assumed because it was the only way the Council could get CPZ underway across more than a few streets. Additionally, you deviated when it suited, Melbourne Grove Southside as a case in point. It is interesting that you see it as a matter of sides rather than the majority view. The majority of ED did not want it but are slowly being squeezed into capitulation. It is a long game now being speeded up using Covid.

Hi first mate


People were asked whether they wanted controlled parking on their road - not in East Dulwich in general. It was never an all-or-nothing referendum. So we found a solution where, as much as possible, roads which wanted controlled parking had it and those which did not want it did not have it. You could argue that MG South deviated from this policy but I think it is justified on three grounds

1) while the two roads share the same name, they are completely bisected by East Dulwich Grove so are in effect separate roads

2) the road is long and there were very clear differences of opinion at each end


Best wishes

James

Asking residents if they want CPZ on their road was always disingenuous since parking displacement is a well known phenomenon, especially when various other measures to reduce parking space are also underway. Let?s not pretend this was in any way even-handed.


We get it, the Council needs the dosh, but please don?t dress it up as democracy, concern for our health or anything else.

Hi Monkey


Do you mean producing a newsletter? I think different councillors choose to communicate with the residents they represent in a range of ways. It depends a bit on the ward and on the councillor. Which ward are you in? I'm sure your Labour councillors would be happy to hear from you.


Best wishes

James

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...