One (part of) Dulwich

[Earl Aelfheah]

Moaning years after it took place, that a consultation exercise wasn’t treated as if it were a referendum, when it clearly wasn’t one, is ridiculous.

Since the Dulwich LTN was implemented Labour have stood for re-election and been voted back in with an increased majority. It is nonsense to argue that they don’t have a mandate to govern (which includes continuing to manage local roads).

Edited Tuesday at 22:02 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

It is nonsense to keep insisting they have a mandate to impose specific local LTNs and CPZ when quite clearly they don't. They have u-turned on a manifesto pledge to place residents at the heart of decisions that affect them and their environment, ignoring consultation results with a majority against measures imposed.

[malumbu]

They have the powers though.  When is it time for you to quit and move on?  A serious question.  It is not going to be reversed.

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

They have the powers though. 

But they very much don't have a mandate for it. Therein lies the point. They have the power but not the people's agreement - despite what some of their most beloved supporters claim.

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

When is it time for you to quit and move on?  A serious question.  It is not going to be reversed.

Probably never...well not until folks stop trying to tell us that the council have a mandate to do these things or that the council gets held accountable for their actions. For many of those of us who live in the affected area there is a sense of injustice and they will never dissipate. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:15 by Rockets

[first mate]

Especially not when a local Councillor has announced that a new, revised CPZ for three roads in East Dulwich has now been "agreed" despite no further statutory consultation taking place, which the council's own documents said that decision would be subject to. So not only has the council done a complete reverse ferret on a manifesto pledge, it has also seemingly abandoned its own process. 
 

 

[Penguin68]

12 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They have a mandate from the electorate to manage local roads

No they do not. Local government, of whatever ilk, has a requirement to manage local roads, that's part of the job they sign up to. No local election has asked voters to choose which of the statutory requirements they wish their chosen candidate to be responsible for. A mandate would reflect very specific sets of actions put forward as part of a programme of governance. They offered nothing specific apart from listening to their constituents desires and needs which they have specifically ignored. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

They specifically committed to implementing the recommendations of their climate emergency citizens jury in their manifesto (you should read the recommendations). They also specifically committed to making Southwark safer for walking and cycling. You may not agree with these commitments, but they’re very clearly there. Again, no party is expected to itemise every individual initiative.

Whether one says they have a mandate to manage roads, or a requirement to manage roads is semantics. The point is that it is entirely their responsibility. They don’t need to hold a referendum on every street scheme and it’s ridiculous to infer that they are somehow acting outside of their purview.

A consultation is not a referendum or some sort of binding vote. We have local elections. Re. the Dulwich LTN specifically, it had already been implemented at the time of the last election. They were returned to office. To suggest they have no mandate is absolute rubbish.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Probably never...well not until folks stop trying to tell us that the council have a mandate to do these things or that the council gets held accountable for their actions. For many of those of us who live in the affected area there is a sense of injustice and they will never dissipate. 

I understand that you didn’t get your way over a road layout change and that years later you feel an ongoing sense of grievance, but the constant suggestion of foul play is so boring. If you think they broke the law or acted outside their powers in some way, take some action. You keep saying there must be accountability (for the council as well as 'their supporters and cheerleaders') - what does this mean? You’re not happy with the council being democratically accountable at the ballot box, and God only knows what 'accountability' for their supporters means. What are you calling for?  

Edited Wednesday at 08:23 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Once more, they u-turned on a manifesto pledge; now with the revised Melbourne Grove South, they seem to be imposing a revised CPZ without the statutory consultation their own documents said was necessary. Note, this is current, the revised CPZ has not yet been implemented, dates for implementation have not been communicated to residents affected. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't know much about the CPZ, but if they haven't followed the statutory consultation requirements then there is a clear example of how they might be held accountable for procedural failures. But I'm more interested in Rockets continued insistence that the Dulwich LTN (now more than half a decade old), was implemented without proper authority in some way and his calls for the council and their supporters to be 'held accountable'. I'm fed up with the insinuations and the nonsense. @Rockets what does this 'accountability' actually look like in your mind? Legal action? On what grounds? Mob justice? Against who? What is it you actually want, if not accountability through the ballot box?

Edited Wednesday at 08:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm fed up with the insinuations and the nonsense. @Rockets what does this 'accountability' actually look like in your mind? Legal action? On what grounds? Mob justice? Against who? What is it you actually want, if not accountability through the ballot box?

@Earl Aelfheah what you are fed up with is that this won't just be swept under the carpet - you're annoyed that those who live in the area are still annoyed by the way the council and their cheerleaders have behaved during this whole process and that people are still talking about it. You, and other council cheerleaders, would be much happier if the noise from the, ahem, "small vocal minority" had just died out. You're all upset that OneDulwich keeps this atop the local agenda and you resort to trying to demonise them and anyone who dares have an opinion that differs from yours.

Look at your use of "mob justice" - a not so veiled insinuation that I am calling for stocks and public floggings in the Square of councillors and the active travel fan-bois. Come on - be better than that - it's so transparent what you're doing, a bit like the repeated accusations from the usual suspects that OneDulwich is funded by some fascist cabal hell bent on world domination via opposition to LTNs (one at a time) - it's really time some people grew up and distanced themselves from the playground name-calling tactics.

Clearly, the only accountability (if there ever is any) will be at the ballot box because the council has steadfastly refused to take any responsibility for what they have done (to be fair Labour councils tend NEVER to take any accountability for their actions when things don't go well) and have repeatedly tried to mislead the general public (seemingly with great effect given even you came on here trying to claim majority support for the DV LTN when the polar opposite was true but buried beneath the headlines fed to you by the council).

What is abundantly clear is that the council do not have a mandate from local residents for the LTNs - they have, however, decide to proceed regardless and spend huge amounts of tax-payers money on them. Perhaps they will get away with it but perhaps, if more people are aware, there will be an element of accountability at the ballot box - seemingly the only recourse available to those who have felt ignored and misled. But, at the end of the day, this is politics for you and why so many people distrust politicians of every political leaning now.

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Look at your use of "mob justice" - a not so veiled insinuation that I am calling for stocks and public floggings

You've said you want people to be held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - not just unspecified councillors but also their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois'. What does this mean? You're clearly not satisfied with councillors being held accountable at the ballot box - as you know they have stood for re-election since the Dulwich LTN was implemented and increased their majority. So if not the ballot box, if not through legal routes (despite your insinuations there is no evidence they've acted outside of their authority), what is it you're actually calling for?

16 minutes ago, Rockets said:

What is abundantly clear is that the council do not have a mandate from local residents for the LTNs

I don't agree. They have a democratic mandate, the power and authority to implement such schemes, and they're held accountable through a legal and regulatory framework and through the ballot box. You say they don't have a mandate because a consultation is actually a binding referendum, or should be treated as one in it's absence. This is just ridiculous.

It seems that you are just upset that you didn't get what you wanted and that the council got re-elected. That's it. It's just an endless, pointless grievance, with no resolution that you can articulate.

Edited Wednesday at 10:20 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

So, in your view, to u-turn on a manifesto pledge is absolutely fine? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

No, I don't think it's fine. but firstly I don't believe they have done and secondly, if that is your belief, recourse is through the ballot box.

To suggest they do not have a mandate, because you don't agree with a decision they've made (even though they've been returned to office since that decision), is just nonsense.

It's not that they don't have a democratic mandate, it's just that you don't agree with what they've done and are unhappy that they were re-elected. Don't try to wrap it up as though it's anything more than that. You're just upset that you haven't got your way. Well that is how democracy works sometimes. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

To suggest they do not have a mandate, because you don't agree with a decision they've made (even though they've been returned to office since that decision), is just nonsense.

It's not that they don't have a democratic mandate, it's just that you don't agree with what they've done and are unhappy that they were re-elected. Don't try to wrap it up as though it's anything more than that. You're just upset that you haven't got your way. Well that is how democracy works sometimes. 

Can you show us where the council has anything more definitive and compelling than the consultation results to determine whether they have a mandate to do this? No I am upset that the council, repeatedly, erodes the democratic process by doing things against the wishes of the majority of local constituents and that some stand back and congratulate them for doing so as that has far-reaching long-term implications, especially in light of the current political mood-board.

You may be happy to turn a blind eye to this happening for things you support but don't come moaning to us if political parties start doing it with things you don't like using the model deployed for LTNs - because that is what always happens.

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Can you show us where the council has anything more definitive and compelling than the consultation results to determine whether they have a mandate to do this?

You still seem to think that the council needs to have a referendum in order to make changes legitimately. They do not. You really should Google ‘representative democracy’. 

[Rockets]

You were the one who claimed the council had a mandate for these changes....which they clearly do not and you cannot offer anything to counter that. In fact, the majority of local constituents oppose the changes....the fact the council ploughs on despite this is something other than representative democracy in action...

[Earl Aelfheah]

They get their democratic mandate through elections.

We don’t have a system of direct democracy where you get to vote on every decision.

This is basic stuff.

You still haven’t said what it is you actually want.

[Penguin68]

13 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They do not. You really should Google ‘representative democracy’. 

And I'm sure that if Reform is elected to whichever council is yours (is it Southwark?) you will steadfastly support anything that they propose on the basis that this is their mandate and that they are a representative democracy which, by your definition is anything they chose to do, whether specifically in their manifestor or not.

'Representative democracy' I suspect in your case, means a dictatorship which might be changed every 3 years or so, but is not required to consult or, if they do, to follow the results of that consultation.

You seem relatively unsure, IMHO of the actual meanings of the words 'representative' and 'democracy'. Or indeed what a mandate actually refers to (and it doesn't refer to anything not specifically in your programme - and is not covered by the broad motherhood statements you seem to think it is).

Edited Wednesday at 12:43 by Penguin68

[Earl Aelfheah]

I haven't said that Rockets must support the changes that were made years ago to the road layout on Calton Avenue. I've just asked that he stop insinuating that Southwark have somehow acted outside of their powers, or in ways that are undemocratic. They have not. I also think that half a decade on, if he isn't actually calling for the decision to be reversed, and can't say what he wants to happen in response to his grievance, then it really is just pointless noise. Again, what is it he wants?

Edited Wednesday at 12:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Again, this refers to changes being made right now, without mandate (u-turning on a manifesto pledge to put local residents at the heart of changes that affect them and their environment; directly against the majority in opposition to proposals at initial consultation, against detail of their own process stating revised proposals are subject to statutory consultation- which has not happened).

To keep bleating that all this was half a decade ago is wilfully misleading.

[Rockets]

16 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

And I'm sure that if Reform is elected to whichever council is yours (is it Southwark?) you will steadfastly support anything that they propose on the basis that this is their mandate and that they are a representative democracy which, by your definition is anything they chose to do, whether specifically in their manifestor or not.

This is exactly the point. If this were to happen I suspect many will suddenly turn from being game-keeper to then being poacher and moaning about the erosion of democracy. There is a huge amount of blinkered hypocrisy on show here.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is just nonsense. I don’t want Reform in power, but if they’re elected I’m not going to claim it’s anti democratic. No one says you have to be happy about the changes made to the road layout many years ago now. But when you say you want people (both councillors and their 'cheerleaders') held accountable, censored, or 'disciplined', what does that mean? Councillors have stood for re-election and won. There is no evidence that they acted outside of their powers or broke the law. People who enjoy the square are perfectly entitled to. You’ve stated that you don’t want the scheme reversed, so what is it you want? 

Edited Wednesday at 13:25 by Earl Aelfheah

[CPR Dave]

 

"to be fair Labour councils tend NEVER to take any accountability for their actions when things don't go well"

 

To be fair this doesn't stop at Labour councillor level.

 

The current Labour Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Minister is refusing to resign despite having underpaid a house purchase tax bill by £40,000.  She's blaming her advisers instead of taking accountability for her own liabilities.

The Labour Prime Minister is also fully supportive of her because she used to be working class. 

This attitude  goes right to the top.

 

Edited Wednesday at 13:58 by CPR Dave

[Rockets]

58 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is just nonsense. I don’t want Reform in power, but if they’re elected I’m not going to claim it’s anti democratic.

Re-read my post...it's clear what I meant - not that a political party being elected as being anti-democratic but if they started doing this after election with something you folks didn't approve of then I suspect you'd be all over it and taking the fight to them. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But when you say you want people (both councillors and their 'cheerleaders') held accountable, censored, or 'disciplined', what does that mean?

I have already explained this so you're going over old ground again and, as usual, deflecting.

But as @CPR Dave explains...Labour (or maybe it's just politicians of any persuasion or of any rank), has always seemed to struggle with accountability. How Angela Rayner can be in this position again after the Stockport home "I took expert counsel" issue is anyone's guess but it is of huge embarrassment to her, the party and the PM and I suspect she will have to go (and I do wonder whether it is folks within the party who are leaking this stuff to knee-cap her political aspirations as part of the on-going and future battle within the party).

[ianr]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

it's really time some people grew up and distanced themselves from the playground name-calling tactics.

Noted