Goose Green Councillors newsletter

[jamesmcash]

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

[first mate]

Such a shame you have to sign up to it, can't you just cut and paste the contents on here or make it available for residents to read on your website? I don't quite understand why the newsletter needs a separate space you have to sign in to?

[Abe_froeman]

This might explain why you have to register:

"We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing"

[jamesmcash]

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 :)

[Abe_froeman]

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?

[Mark]

Abe_froeman, mailchimp is simply the system used to send email, it's nothing sinister. It's similar to saying letters are passed to Royal Mail "for processing".

[Abe_froeman]

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?

[first mate]

I think it is interesting that James refers to his work on ED CP as carving out a proposal that? most people could live with?. I would say hardly, most people did not want it but most people have no choice but to live with it.

[jamesmcash]

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

[first mate]

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.

[jamesmcash]

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

[first mate]

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.

[Monkey]

James, can you please encourage your fellow councillors on other wards to follow suit? It?s dispiriting to see other wards not benefitting from the same level of engagement from their councillors and ultimately makes me question why I vote Labour quite frankly.

[jamesmcash]

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