Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think for Dulwich Village Ward, the Lib Dems seem to have virtually disappeared, and I cannot bear what Councillors Newens and Leeming have done with our lovely district. So I'll be taking a very deep breath and voting for the Tories. They are not anything to do with the national Tory cause anyway, and I would like to see some different people holding those Labour councillors to account. It is a one party borough, the Lib Dems don't have any feelings for anyone south of Walworth.
Yes, I think I?ll be voting. I?m in Dulwich Wood ward and despite a great deal of ambivalence about the Labour Party and politics generally, I have always had very prompt responses to issues i have raised with Andy Simmonds. As I have a pair of fully functioning legs and couldn?t afford to run a car even if I wanted to, the whole LTN thing is pretty much irrelevant to people like me.

Still trying to distance Tristan and Clive from the Tories I see...


Tristan's bio shows that he's been an active Conservative party member for years and Clive could have chosen to stand as an independent on an anti LTN ticket given its the central part of their positioning, but instead he decided to stand as a Conservative candidate, I'm not really sure how you're drawing the distinction.


Not sure what happened to the Lib Dems in DV to make you think they've disappeared. I believe they're still campaigning, and apparently on a 'take out the LTNs' platform too.




Metallic Wrote:

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

> I think for Dulwich Village Ward, the Lib Dems

> seem to have virtually disappeared, and I cannot

> bear what Councillors Newens and Leeming have done

> with our lovely district. So I'll be taking a

> very deep breath and voting for the Tories. They

> are not anything to do with the national Tory

> cause anyway, and I would like to see some

> different people holding those Labour councillors

> to account. It is a one party borough, the Lib

> Dems don't have any feelings for anyone south of

> Walworth.

Ampersand Wrote:

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

> Yes, I think I?ll be voting. I?m in Dulwich Wood

> ward and despite a great deal of ambivalence about

> the Labour Party and politics generally, I have

> always had very prompt responses to issues i have

> raised with Andy Simmonds. As I have a pair of

> fully functioning legs and couldn?t afford to run

> a car even if I wanted to, the whole LTN thing is

> pretty much irrelevant to people like me.



I can't complain about the majority of responses I've received from Cllr Simmonds over the years and has been pro-active on non-LTN issues, but he towed the party line on LTNs and wasn't very convincing with the use of the data he shared with me on the traffic issues on LL within Dulwich Wood ward.


I'm sure Labour will win Dulwich Wood as only a tiny part of the ward is affected by the LTN (just happens to be the bit I live in!) but I will be voting Lib Dems.

My view is Tristan and Clive from the Conservatives should resign their party memberships and not stand on a Tory ticket.


What has happened at a national level in the Conservatives is disgusting. The law makers were partying while a local 19 year old young woman died at home, having to say her farewells to her friends and wider family on zoom. I cannot see how Tristan and Clive could credibly allow themselves to be part of such an organisation.

I think it?s pretty clear that not everyone in the Conservative party is that happy with antics at number 10. I tend to think that staying and clearing things up/ out is a better strategy in this sort of situation. Otherwise you?re just letting the wrongdoers win. With no general election imminent, the only way to get Boris and friends out is for appalled conservatives to stay there and take care of the problem?


Anyway, having read the manifestos now, and with a focus on local issues at a local election, I think I?m going to vote conservative. It would be nice not to have political parties / so much constant noise about national politics at a local level (and for everyone to be a bit more collaborative),but the system is what it is, I guess.

Do you think that?s what?s going on- I think most of the public are well aware of the party gate issues so I?m not sure what impact conservatives speaking out or not would have on local elections - in fact in some ways I would have thought that an active backbench rebellion might encourage people not to taint local candidates with the Team Boris brush as it would show that not everyone in the Conservative party agrees with the partygate behaviour?


I see local elections as quite different from general elections but that could well be as a result of growing up in a country with relatively apolitical local government and/ or wishful thinking on my part.

This thread has been really interesting- not least for the distinction being made between local Tories and central govt ones. What is clear though is that to the extent there are conservative gains the government will see this as validation of their positioning, so emboldening them on the party fines position, giving them a pass on the new horrific policy of selling refugees to Rwanda are two that particularly stick out.


It?s also interesting that the Southwark Tory manifesto stands on a position of claiming they will reverse cuts to education and transport that have been made by Tory central government. It?s easy to dismiss as ridiculous political claims if you don?t support, but worrying that people look at it and thing ?yes, I can support that? without realising that it?s Tories on both sides!

What is clear though is that to the extent there are conservative gains the government will see this as validation of their positioning, so emboldening them on the party fines position, giving them a pass on the new horrific policy of selling refugees to Rwanda are two that particularly stick out.


This.


Anyone who thinks that if the Tories do well in the locals, that Johnson then won't laud it as vindication of him and his policies, is away with the fairies...

The Lib Dem leaflet has one mention in passing, of LTNs.


One Lb Dem candidate neither works or lives in Southwark, which I saw on my postal voting information. At least one is a legal requirement. And why don't sitting councillors have to say where they live?


I am very concerned that the next closure will be by the Library. It was once wanted in the old Area B Streetspace ideas. Then there will be issues over access big time. I saw on twitter about the fire engine the other day. There is also a person in Court Lane who was seriously compromised because the ambulance couldn't get to them - again seen on twitter. Winners and losers.

Metallic Wrote:

--


Wow, these experiences you have listed are truly shocking :( and provides meat on the bone the current administration dont seem to listern :(

> The Lib Dem leaflet has one mention in passing, of

> LTNs.

>

> One Lb Dem candidate neither works or lives in

> Southwark, which I saw on my postal voting

> information. At least one is a legal requirement.

> And why don't sitting councillors have to say

> where they live?

>

> I am very concerned that the next closure will be

> by the Library. It was once wanted in the old

> Area B Streetspace ideas. Then there will be

> issues over access big time. I saw on twitter

> about the fire engine the other day. There is

> also a person in Court Lane who was seriously

> compromised because the ambulance couldn't get to

> them - again seen on twitter. Winners and losers.

SE22_2020er Wrote:

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

> Well I'm certainly not voting for a Tory candidate

> who lives in a proper gated community in Woodyard

> Lane in Dulwich Village. The hypocrisy is

> breathtaking!


That's daft It's a cul de sac on the Dulwich Estate, I haven't ever seen gates there even when there used to be an old lady living in the original house. So it is no more gated than Townley Rd or Calton Avenue, or Court Lane. I suspect quite a few people who comment on the LTNs do so because they live on one, or sort of one in the sense the traffic is affected by cameras or planters. Just like me and most of Area B.

Good question. I?m more concerned that voting Labour would signal support for Southwark Labour (as opposed to Labour for central govt) than I am about the potential that voting conservative would signal support for Boris at a central govt level. The Dulwich Village ward is a fairly obvious microclimate viewed against Southwark as a whole.


If people vote Labour locally it will undoubtedly be presented by SL as support for the Dulwich LTN, infill on council estates, the cabinet system, a lack of transparency about lobby groups and a bunch of gentrification policies that I have reservations about. So I?m sticking to my policy of voting on a local issues basis for these elections.


My vote in the next general election - reserving judgment.

I?ve been canvassed once each. Just received the attached through the letterbox which:


(i)begs the question as to why, if hundreds of residents have been raising issues over the last two years, I?m only hearing about opposition now, shortly before the election (I guess that?s what the ?understandably, COVID? wording is aimed at, although as I understand it loads of staff are still off work with COVID and numbers of people commuting into central London is still down, which I guess is what is driving the timetable change?; and


(ii) made me wonder who makes decisions on timetable - is it the train operator, government, Is TfL consulted, does someone consider taking into account overall PTAL and alternative services (I have no idea but would be quite interested to know)


(iii) how would TfL take control of services that go beyond TfL boundaries and do any of these fall into that category (Thameslink do presumably, but some might not). But then given dire state of TfL finances do they want responsibility for these services as they don?t seem like moneyspinners?


?Boris Johnson?s government wants to cut train services permanently in our area? sounds a bit hyperbolic. I doubt they care that much either way in WC1 or whatever the postcode is?.


Thoughts?


ETA the attachment. Doh!

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

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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