One (part of) Dulwich

[Rockets]

11 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That's why traffic across the whole area actually fell.

Well, it didn't did it?

Just to remind you (again) the council did not monitor the whole area as major displacement routes like Underhill. Crystal Palace and Barry Road were not monitored. So any claims of traffic falling across the whole area is a wildly inaccurate falsehood spun by the council and parrotted by the pro-LTN lobbyists.

And as Cllr McAsh famously wrote on his blog LTNs cannot be considered a success if they do not reduce traffic for everyone. And they haven't- so by his own bar they are a failure.

12 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Some people who may have driven to pick up a coffee from the village, will now walk.

Hurrah, well all that momey spent, delays to emergency service and massive displacement was worth it then because a handful of people now walk to Gail's. P.S. you know the council's own data on that junction showed most journeys through that junction were part of longer journeys because it was one of the only east/west routes across the Dulwich Area? The congestion wasn't being caused by people going to the Village to buy coffee.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

And as Cllr McAsh famously wrote on his blog

Fair to say that fragments of years old blog posts by some councillor about road closures don't loom as large in the public consciousness as they do in the minds of some people on here. 

[Rockets]

Maybe I should have said Cllr McAsh foolishly wrote on his blog on LTNs 😉 .......this stuff can haunt you especially when you are both the local councillor championing those LTNs and now Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets and Waste - so his comments are very important. I suspect he is a little bit more politically savvy now as this did happen around the time of some other politically naïve decisions and actions. 

Accountability needs to be high on any politicians' radar and if you say something that doesn't materialise surely you have a moral obligation to address it? What he promised has not materialised - is everyone supposed to just turn and blind eye and pretend it doesn't matter. This is why politicians of all persuasions have such an awful reputation and trust in politics is at an all-time low - with party and politics being put before people.

[Glemham]

The latest from the great works underway at Vanity Square - aka the Village junction. The photo shows a rubbish site at the junction with a discarded bench which is reputed to have been recently outside the bookshop, and both brand new and expensive. Southwark has money to burn it seems. Will we ever find out the true costs involved in this vanity project which is supported only a minority of local residents?

[malumbu]

I'm really looking forward to the development being completed and hope to see some of you there.

[alice]

😂😂😂😂

meanwhile

[first mate]

Anyone know why the bench has been removed? Surely this will be reused? So much time and money being spent on reconfiguring this tiny space. As someone mentioned, Southwark clearly have money to throw around.

[Rockets]

You've got to hope it's being reused...it wasn't put in that long ago. The way it has been tossed with the rest of the rubbish suggests it is being thrown out.

 

Very, very bad look for the council if it is (especially given the noise they made about the reuse of the playground furniture installed there in the first lymp of tax payers' money invested in Dulwich Square).

 

P.S. When was the photo of the bench taken and was it in front of the hairdressers as if it was, it doesn't seem to be there now? 

 

P.P.S ignore that as having looked at the photo it isn't in front of the hairdressers - there are similar pallets and white bags out front of the hairdressers.

Edited September 8, 2024 by Rockets

[march46]

Lots of outrage without finding out the facts. It's highly likely the bench is being stored there until it is moved to a different location - but let's jump immediately to 'council is bad'. 🙄

[Rockets]

Well if they are storing it there for future use let's hope no-one decides to take it or it is well secured - I suspect it's worth a few bob and there are plenty of people driving around the area looking for scrap and if they see if I bet it will go.

[malumbu]

OK 15 months later, a brief summary of my views

OneDulwich have mission creep going well beyond Court Lane etc and now going on about pavement cycling.  My view continues that they do not have solutions for reducing road traffic and emissions.

Whilst they may not be politically affiliated their views accord with the right and far right parties.  

In the same vein many posting on the EDF may not be members of One Dulwich but very much support what he/they have to say.

As with many campaigns there is always dangers that extreme groups hijack things - think Bash the Rich/Class war and the large demo against the poll tax that turned into a riot.  Plenty of right wing examples of course.

 

Edited September 1 by malumbu

[first mate]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

In the same vein many posting on the EDF may not be members of One Dulwich but very much support what he/they have to say.

To be accurate: some of us 'support what he/they have to say' about some local/ Dulwich/ East Dulwich traffic management schemes imposed by Southwark Council, without mandate and after a majority consultation result against those schemes.

To keep inferring that majority view is also part of a far right plot sounds desperate. It can be no surprise that objections to a local issue keep appearing on a local forum. If an organisation echoes those objections on local issues there can also be little surprise those are quoted too.

As an example of why there are concerns, can you explain why a revised version of the rejected East Dulwich CPZ is to be imposed anyway? And, why has a councillor announced this is all now "agreed", despite the matter not going to statutory consultation, which the council's own documents stated was necessary? Is this not breach of process? Remember, no mandate, and a consultation majority against the CPZ.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

traffic management schemes imposed by Southwark Council, without mandate

Southwark Council were elected with an increased majority at the last set of local election. They were voted in to manage, amongst other things, local roads. Whether you agree with how they've done that or not, it is simply false to claim that they don't have a mandate.

As repeatedly explained, a consultation is not a referendum. We live in a representative democracy. I don't know how you still appear not to understand this fact.

Whilst it's fair to criticise decisions the council have made, trying to infer that they are not empowered to make those decisions, or have made them illegitimately is nonsense.

Edited September 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

I didn't say it was a right wing plot.  What I said was that the right wing parties are opposed to this type of measure (and against net zero)

Centre left and right governments for over two decades, prior to Sunak and the progressive lurch to the right of the Tories, had programmes to reduce emissions and support sustainable transport.  A centre right government introduced LTNs; irrespective of his motives Johnson did a lot of good both as Mayor and PM to support sustainable transport (I say carefully avoiding the folly of the new routemaster).

For balance Labour are underwhelming on sustainable transport but have kept Active Travel England and generally let local authorities get on with things.

[Rockets]

@malumbu during family arguments if someone presents to you a view that you do not agree with do you default to calling them a fascist or right-wing? Just wondering......

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whether you agree with how they've done that or not, it is simply false to claim that they don't have a mandate.

They don't have a mandate. They have the power and control but they didn't campaign on any of this so trying to retrofit claims that they have a mandate is inaccurate and misleading.

In fact, I think they claimed in their election manifesto materials that they would work with, and listen to, local communities and the local community has soundly rejected all of the measures they have put up for consultation so any imagined mandate they, or you, thought they had was thoroughly, overwhelmingly and categorically rejected.

They chose to ignore that feedback from their constituents and I suspect they did that rolling the dice that it would not backfire at the next election.

[Earl Aelfheah]

58 minutes ago, Rockets said:

They don't have a mandate. They have the power and control but they didn't campaign on any of this so trying to retrofit claims that they have a mandate is inaccurate and misleading.

You are just wrong. We live in a representative democracy. The fact that you cannot grasp this, or understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum is ridiculous.

Their manifesto was titled ‘fairer, cleaner, safer’ and committed to clean air and healthy streets, and to building on the Southwark climate change citizens jury (which recommended amongst other things, a significant reduction in cars). They were returned with an increased majority. But regardless, they don't need to itemise every road scheme in their manifesto.

[Rockets]

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You are just wrong.

Nope I am not. 

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But regardless, they don't need to itemise every road scheme in their manifesto.

A mention of any sort of road scheme would probably have been a good start but, of course, they failed to mention anything of that ilk - just woolly-worded manifesto statements that they hope gave them cover to roll out whatever they really had plans for. Look, every political party does it - make bold statements that mean nothing in terms of tactical execution then say - oh but we referenced these in our manifesto.

The weakness comes when they then run a consultation and then the vast majority oppose their plans - which then clearly tells them they do not have a mandate. Then they have to decide the political impact of ignoring their constituents.

Southwark did not have a mandate to roll out the majority of these measures from their constituents - that much is clear and obvious and to try to claim otherwise is mischievous at best.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just Google 'representative democracy'. They don't have to and they don't generally, run referenda on individuals schemes. A consultation is not a popular vote. This is just a basic fact of our democratic system, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

[first mate]

 

• Member
• •  8.3k

Posted 52 minutes ago

  1 hour ago,  Rockets said:

They don't have a mandate. They have the power and control but they didn't campaign on any of this so trying to retrofit claims that they have a mandate is inaccurate and misleading.

Earl replied: You are just wrong. We live in a representative democracy. The fact that you cannot grasp this, or understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum is ridiculous.

 

Earl, you are plain wrong. The Council had no mandate for the specific interventions under discussion. Not only that, in their manifesto they made a firm promise that local residents would be placed at the heart of decisions affecting them and their environment. 

[Rockets]

57 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Just Google 'representative democracy'. They don't have to and they don't generally, run referenda on individuals schemes. A consultation is not a popular vote. This is just a basic fact of our democratic system, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

@Earl Aelfheah in lieu of a referendum a consultation is the only measure we have to present actual data on whether constituents support the council's actions i.e. whether they have a mandate from the people for their plans. Clearly, when it comes to LTNs the overwhelming majority are not giving the council the mandate - the consultation results speak for themselves in that regard - the data is there in black and white.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes I understand that you want consultation exercises to be treated as if they were referenda, but they are not. And as I pointed out, what you wish was true is irrelevant to what is true. We have a system of representative democracy.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Earl, you are plain wrong. The Council had no mandate for the specific interventions under discussion.

They have a mandate to make decisions on behalf of the electorate for the course of their elected term. They don’t need to constantly renew their mandate in relation to every individual initiative.

We don’t live in a direct democracy, so constantly complaining on the grounds that the council haven’t acted as though we do, is pointless.

Edited September 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They have a mandate to make decisions on behalf of the electorate for the course of their elected term. They don’t need to constantly renew it in relation to every individual initiative. Again, educate yourself on representative democracy.

But clearly the consultation results show that they do not have a mandate from local people for the DV LTN (for example) - do they? I do not need educating on representative democracy; perhaps you do on interpreting results of consultations. The numbers are really very clear. The council has decided to ignore the results of the consultation and that is their prerogative because, as you repeatedly say it is not a referendum, but they absolutely DO NOT have a mandate from local people for those measures. 

And here is a reminder of said results with Return it to the Original State as the overwhelming majority:

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

They have a mandate from the electorate to manage local roads. That’s the vote we had. A consultation exercise is not a vote. The fact that you cannot grasp this is bizarre.

A consultation exercise is not a referendum and your criticising it on the grounds that it hasn’t been treated as one is ridiculous, and very boring.

 

Edited September 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

So what then is the point of a clear manifesto promise to place residents at the heart of decisions that affect them and their environment? Is it your view that is worth absolutely nothing? How is completely overriding and ignoring the  results of various consultations on road management and CPZ consistent with that manifesto pledge?

[Rockets]

46 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They have a mandate from the electorate to manage local roads. That’s the vote we had. A consultation exercise is not a vote. The fact that you cannot grasp this is bizarre.

So you admit now there was no manifesto pledge on LTNs? Good, we are getting somewhere. 

As @first mate states the council very much did pledge to put constituents at the heart of every decision they make.

So answer me this; what barometer on public opinion does the council have on local residents' views towards the LTNs?

To be honest the only bizarre element of this is that you are arguing that some woolly worded manifesto blah blah blah that doesn't even mention LTNs somehow usurps polling of local residents in specific relation to their views on specific LTNs. A blank strategic manifesto does not give you a mandate for specific tactical implementations - your argument is massively flawed. You seem to have been hoodwinked by political spin at its absolute best.