James McCash quoted in the Guardian!

[Sue]

James McAsh, a delegate from Camberwell and Peckham, says if the 20% threshold were in place in the 1990s, John Prescott and Margaret Beckett would not have been able to stand for the leadership. Ed Balls, Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham would have been excluded in 2010, he says.

And he says if the same rule had applied after the 2019 election defeat, Keir Starmer would have been the only candidate.

He says with this rule change, candidates will be paler, maler and staler.

[heartblock]

I agree with him...

[Abe_froeman]

I find it utterly hypocritical in light of how his fellow councillors are prepared to galsight and ignore vast swathes of their own constituents .

[heartblock]

I do find it strange that Socialists support LTNs that benefit the wealthy and negatively impact poorer communities and support building on green spaces in the poorer estates.

That does baffle me.

Not sure I would go for hypocritical (although looking at the majority that want LTNs removed in the consultation, I can see why you could get to that conclusion) - I think more deluded in following what was a Tory policy - probably implemented so that real changes that actually reduce pollution could be ignored and dismissed because 'yea!' we have LTNs instead.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Low traffic schemes benefit the most deprived Londoners, study finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/mar/02/low-traffic-schemes-benefit-most-deprived-londoners-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Spartacus]

Keep clinging to your fantasy about LTNs RahRahRah. My fantasy is that I'm married to Kylie Minogue but that doesn't make it any truer than yours 😭

[malumbu]

Spartacus, you've been so lucky, lucky lucky lucky.....

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Low traffic schemes benefit the most deprived

> Londoners, study finds

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2

> 021/mar/02/low-traffic-schemes-benefit-most-depriv

> ed-londoners-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Yeah well you can prove anything with facts and evidence, can't you? It doesn't make it more true than anything my friend Alfred says down the golf club.

> do find it strange that Socialists support LTNs

"I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use. And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is, because trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work. As the benefits of schemes increase over time, what opposition there is falls further. That is why schemes must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evidenced.

?Almost exactly six years ago, in east London, we began the first of the transformational low-traffic neighbourhood schemes... There was intense controversy: hundreds of protestors carried a golden coffin to symbolise the ?death? we were supposedly causing to the local shops. But the council stuck it out, thank goodness. Now, the local shops and cafes have never been busier, air quality is up, opposition to the LTN has evaporated, and so has some of the traffic.?

More typical high-handed socialist bullshit. What kind of Trotskyist clique has been funding this nightmare?

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/evolution/news/69526/removing-active-travel-schemes-could-cost-councils-funding-warns-dft

[JohnL]

There is an argument that MPs pick the leader in parliament.

Maybe there is also a case for a leader outside parliament but that causes issues when/if labour get into power.

MPs are voted for by labour voters as representatives (not delegates) - these MPs then pick their leader on behalf of those who voted for them.