"Vote Them Out May 2022" flyer

[eastdulwichrover]

Yes, doesn't seem like this is quite the disavowal its intended as

[ab29]

Nothing more dodgy than Southwark labour councillors association with property developers.

[CPR Dave]

Do you guys wear your tin foil cycling hats when you post these conspiracy theories??

[johnie]

VotethemoutMay22 Wrote:

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

> Good morning, EDF. Just a reminder about who we

> are, which is on our website:

> http://votethemoutmay22.org.uk/faqs/ We are a

> group of people living on different roads across

> the Dulwich area who are fed up with our current

> Labour councillors because they are not

> representing the needs of the whole community. As

> individuals, we support different political

> parties at national level, and have voted in the

> past for different parties at local level. We have

> come together now because we want to get rid of

> our Labour-led council, which has pushed through

> road closures against the wishes of local people.

> Everything we have written about the candidates

> comes from information we can find in the public

> domain, and we have declared our sources.

> When we started the website, we thought we would

> know by now who was standing in each ward, and who

> would be likely to overturn Labour. Unfortunately,

> information is still patchy - we haven't heard yet

> who all the candidates are for each party (for

> example, in Goose Green). According to Southwark's

> website, the last day for people to declare

> they're standing for election is 5 April. We will

> update our website as soon as we can. Our aim is

> to recommend for each ward the candidates most

> likely to overturn Labour, whichever party they

> represent.

> Thank you.

I can't find anything about the Moutmay Party, so I'm undecided.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The leaflet I got was rather nasty and evidently counterproductive from the reaction above.

It's been an odd time in hyperlocal politics- a Tory candidate comes from one of the most vociferous, smallest and youngest residents' groups. OneDulwich opens up as the SE21/SE22 franchise of similar groups across London, but doesn't disclose its funding. 🤔

[James Barber]

Can someone please place a copy here so we can all see?

I'd hope that anything purporting to suggest a direction voters should vote has an imprint of who the body suggesting this is, their address and who printed the leaflet. If it doesn't and it's delivered within 6 weeks of the election, after 25 March then I believe it breaks election law. If Labour were to lose they could go to the courts and demand a re run due to this.

For transparency I wont be running in this election.

[CPR Dave]

That's a shame. You'd wipe the floor with the current shower

[eastdulwichrover]

The one I received was the red pdf here. I think it was delivered on 24 March which might not be uncoincidental timing. http://votethemoutmay22.org.uk/leaflets-posters/

It does have printing details and a name, but it's "J Smith" whose address is a po box in Streatham Hill which apparently is the same address as the "vote them out" group.

Again I think this obvious hiding of their actual identities says quite a lot.

As does the local Tory reticence to endorse a campaign which seems to very heavily favour them - surely they should be working together openly? Instead of, as seems to be the case, this being a curiously unlinked but vocally pro Tory supposed grassroots "group" who refuse to do public meetings but will leaflet homes across the area...

[Doug85]

Does anyone know who the Tory Green or Lib Dem candidates are in any of the local wards other than Dulwich Village yet?

eastdulwichrover Wrote:

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

> Incidentally re environmentalists, the website

> doesn't mention the Green Party at all.

>

> The reason I'm calling this a pro Tory website, is

> because it is, in its content, a partisan pro Tory

> website.

>

> It talks down the Lib Dem candidates who are also

> running on an anti LTN slate and praises the Tory

> candidates. It's not even subtle.

[Doug85]

This is a shame. May we enquire as to why? If you are happy to expand? I Didn't live here when I understand you were past Councillor for Goose Green area but had heard good things.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Can someone please place a copy here so we can all

> see?

> I'd hope that anything purporting to suggest a

> direction voters should vote has an imprint of who

> the body suggesting this is, their address and who

> printed the leaflet. If it doesn't and it's

> delivered within 6 weeks of the election, after 25

> March then I believe it breaks election law. If

> Labour were to lose they could go to the courts

> and demand a re run due to this.

>

> For transparency I wont be running in this

> election.

[apbremer]

Sorry Douglas85 but I can find no mention whatever of any anti LTN policy in any part of Lib Dem literature, which just appears to set out a list of the usual boring platitudes. In fact, I sent them a polite email asking them what their LTN attitudes are several days ago but no reply, natch.

[Waseley]

Instinctively LDs should be pro measures to reduce car use. Which many will consider a positive thing

[heartblock]

LTNs do not discourage car use, there is no evidence published. (Aldred measured car ownership, not the same as a car use). There is evidence from WHO that efficient, reliable and cheap public transport reduces car use in the urban environment.

[redpost]

There is tons of evidence, multiple papers published ... induced road demand was proved decades ago

[legalalien]

Even if you assume that the principle of induced road demand is correct in studied cases, it doesn?t follow that some kind of symmetric (or even lesser) traffic evaporation happens if you close roads. And of course it all depends on specific context.

[Rockets]

Waseley Wrote:

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

> Instinctively LDs should be pro measures to reduce

> car use. Which many will consider a positive

> thing

They are, I just don't think, like many of us, that they think the ones in Dulwich are actually helping the issue - in fact, they are making the problem a lot worse.

If Labour had been pragmatic from the beginning they wouldn't be in this mess - this is very much a problem of their own making and they thought they could manipulate their way out of it but I very much sense come May they will reap what they sowed.

I really find it amazing that pro-LTN campaigners used, and continue to use, the term traffic evaporation. As we know if LTNs cause evaporation on one road it condenses and falls on another.....

[ed26]

Can't see what's wrong with this really. Every time there's a General Election, there's plenty of websites that guide people in voting tactically to try to oust a monopoly party, where the opposition is fractured. That's exactly what's happening here.

(And re the comment about cross-border planning, it probably just means cases like if a UK Citizen marries an EU Citizen and they have assets, family or beneficiaries in both jurisdictions. Not necessarily sinister).

[Waseley]

Just out of interest why the "them" (vote them out"? Why not state Labour? All sounds like a crock of poo to me!

[goldilocks]

Hilarious take there - moments away from suggesting its pretty much all pro bono

To be clear, the type of work Tristan (Tory candidate) does is very very far away from what you've suggested.

ed26 Wrote:

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

> Can't see what's wrong with this really. Every

> time there's a General Election, there's plenty of

> websites that guide people in voting tactically to

> try to oust a monopoly party, where the opposition

> is fractured. That's exactly what's happening

> here.

>

> (And re the comment about cross-border planning,

> it probably just means cases like if a UK Citizen

> marries an EU Citizen and they have assets, family

> or beneficiaries in both jurisdictions. Not

> necessarily sinister).

[legalalien]

Looking at Linked In, TH qualified 18 months ago and is in the private client department of a city law firm. He?s probably is having a fair amount of pro bono work given to him, based on my experience - partners in loads of other departments looking for free help for charities that they and their clients are involved in ?as a favour?. Junior lawyers always end up doing this stuff!

But yep, he?s probably giving some tax planning advice to some rich people. And charities by the look of it. Hardly sinister. No need for what comes across as a smear campaign.

(After googling read his brief article about stranded assets which was food for thought).

[ed26]

I finally feel part of this forum now that I've received my own sneering comment from goldilocks. I bet he/she/they spat their soy chai latte all over the screen while typing "hilarious"

I'm clearly not as familiar with Tristan's work in the same way as goldilocks is, but my point was that "cross border" does not necessarily imply anything nefarious is going on. Just because clients legal advice doesn't mean that they are managing a portfolios of offshore accounts in the Caribbean.

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Hilarious take there - moments away from

> suggesting its pretty much all pro bono

>

> To be clear, the type of work Tristan (Tory

> candidate) does is very very far away from what

> you've suggested.

>

>

[DuncanW]

But I can't see anyone claiming that the work he does is sinister or nefarious. Just that there is no reason to think that he is doing a significant or unusually high amount of pro bono work.

I don't agree with his politics, but he's had the sort of impressive pre-politics career that many leading politicians have; gaining a degree from Magdalen in PPE and then taking work in a city law firm.

His social media shows that he has had an interest in right-wing politics and a love for Maggie Thatcher from a young age. So he looks like a potential career Tory - good luck to him; but don't vote for him thinking otherwise.

[JohnL]

So as the 2019 General Election was said to prove that the majority in the UK support Brexit (Still Questionable)

A win for Labour in Southwark would mean the LTN issue is done and dusted (all know it won't be)

[DuncanW]

You might think so...

Labour will most probably retain overall control of Southwark, but it will be interesting to see what happens ward by ward.

If Labour retain Village and Goose Green, then it's a closed matter, surely. People will still disagree and resent, but it's time to move on.

If Labour lose both (to anti LTN), but retain overall control of the borough it's going to be an odd look, to say the least, to not review the LTNs.

My opinion FWIW is that DV is at risk for Labour; from memory, it's often been Tory in the past.

Goose Green would require a much bigger swing.

So I'm not sure where a change in DV, but no change in GG would leave us.

[slarti b]

ed26 Wrote:

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

> I finally feel part of this forum now that I've received my own sneering comment from goldilocks.

She does like a good sneer, and lots of smears as well.