Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

[Insuflo]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

I think the moral of this story is: "hell hath no fury like a politician scorned"

How profound. You should post more often.

[malumbu]

@Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 17/02/2026 at 20:17, James Barber said:

Austerity for councils started in the early days of the Blair government with central grants to councils ot rising with inflation. 

This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez:

The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

14 hours ago, first mate said:

I would be interested to know the LibDem stance on CPZ, LTN, extending double yellow lines and what their approach to road and traffic management will be? If they cannot give a clear, straight answer then I think it will be more of what we have had from Labour. 

From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution.

This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen

Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".

[Sue]

22 hours ago, vladi said:

At last, I've found a good reason to not vote for the greens.

Why would you have to look for "a good reason to not vote for the greens"?

What a very strange thing to say.

Would you like to explain your logic?

[malumbu]

Green Party policy on driver behaviour:

• Default 20mph Speed Limits: The party supports making 20 mph the default speed limit in all residential areas.
• 40mph Speed Limits: Proposing a default 40 mph speed limit in non-residential areas, excluding major roads.
• Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs): Promoting the expansion of LTNs to reduce "rat-running" in residential areas.
• Ending Internal Combustion Engine Sales: A target to end the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.
• Environmental Charging: Implementing a Carbon Tax on fossil fuels to increase the cost of petrol and diesel, incentivizing a shift to electric vehicles or public transport.
• Prioritizing Active Travel: Shifting funding from road building to walking, cycling, and public transport infrastructure, aiming for 50% of trips in towns and cities to be made by these methods by 2030.
• Improved Driver Training: Supporting "eco-driving" techniques to reduce emissions and fuel usage. 

Some of which is good, some unrealistic, and on driver behaviour doesn't go far enough.

Difficult to summarise the Lib Dems position as it is a bit wishy washy wanting to appeal to both the eco warrior and the NIMBY.  Sadly I know people who are both!

Labour (nationally) said that local measures are a local issue, which was quite sensible, after Sunak;s we are going to end the war on motorists last stand, but don't like upsetting hard working motorists for example chickening out on fuel duty rises.

[Patatina]

59 minutes ago, Sue said:

Why would you have to look for "a good reason to not vote for the greens"?

What a very strange thing to say.

Would you like to explain your logic?

Agreed. You don’t have to look for reasons when they’re staring at you in the face. 

[vladi]

1 hour ago, Sue said:

Why would you have to look for "a good reason to not vote for the greens"?

What a very strange thing to say.

Would you like to explain your logic?

Before voting, do you not think it's logical to evaluate each party on its policies and make a tally of the reasons "For" and "Against" voting for each party.

[Moovart]

57 minutes ago, malumbu said:

 

• Prioritizing Active Travel: Shifting funding from road building to walking, cycling, and public transport infrastructure, aiming for 50% of trips in towns and cities to be made by these methods by 2030.

Malumbu, do you happen to know what the current figure is for "trips into town made by walking, cycling and public transport"? 

[first mate]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Prioritizing Active Travel: Shifting funding from road building to walking, cycling, and public transport infrastructure, aiming for 50% of trips in towns and cities to be made by these methods by 2030.

I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level.

I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything.

I don't know if a manifesto exists under the documents section of Southwark Greens, but you can only access that bit by signing in- which is disappointing. If anyone has a manifesto that reflects local priorities- could they post a link?

Edited yesterday at 09:53 by first mate

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Difficult to summarise the Lib Dems position as it is a bit wishy washy wanting to appeal to both the eco warrior and the NIMBY. 

That's the milquetoast triangulation that's delivered so much electoral success to the Lib Dems locally and nationally! 🤣

[Suggsy]

15 hours ago, Insuflo said:

How profound. You should post more often.

To be fair to Rockets, there is more than a whiff of sour grapes about McAsh's move. And clearly his timing and statement have been chosen to maximise damage, so to my mind the analogy holds.

[Sue]

5 hours ago, vladi said:

Before voting, do you not think it's logical to evaluate each party on its policies and make a tally of the reasons "For" and "Against" voting for each party.

Yes,  but as you said "at last" you had found a good reason not to vote for the greens, I wondered why you would want one.

Plus it seemed (to me, at least) a very strange reason and didn't seem to have anything to do with the party's policies.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Suggsy said:

there is more than a whiff of sour grapes about McAsh's move. 

Sure - but to describe one councillor's hissy fit as a "fury" unrivalled by hell is a bit of an overstatement.

Cllr Barber's attempt to hijack the moment by blaming austerity on Labour instead of the Lib Dem-Tory coalition is an amusing fumble too. It would have been better to keep quiet and enjoy the spectacle of Labour and ex-Labour councillors bickering. Labour is well-known for its ability to sustain internal catfights for years, if not decades!

[vladi]

3 hours ago, Sue said:

Yes,  but as you said "at last" you had found a good reason not to vote for the greens, I wondered why you would want one.

Plus it seemed (to me, at least) a very strange reason and didn't seem to have anything to do with the party's policies.

My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 

[Suggsy]

3 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Sure - but to describe one councillor's hissy fit as a "fury" unrivalled by hell is a bit of an overstatement.

Cllr Barber's attempt to hijack the moment by blaming austerity on Labour instead of the Lib Dem-Tory coalition is an amusing fumble too. It would have been better to keep quiet and enjoy the spectacle of Labour and ex-Labour councillors bickering. Labour is well-known for its ability to sustain internal catfights for years, if not decades!

Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green. 

James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 

[Sue]

16 hours ago, vladi said:

My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 

I'd be interested to know how else you award points when deciding what party to vote for!

[Blah Blah]

15 hours ago, Suggsy said:

Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green. 

James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 

The problem with the first Southwark leadership election is that two proxy votes were cast, which is against Southwark's own party rules. So that is why the election was re-run. The controversy is in switching to an online as opposed to in person second election.

James has causes he vehemently stands for, and it's fair enough if he thinks the local Labour Party is no longer for him. Government is not easy, and there are hard decisions to be made always. London councils have always had a better deal when it comes to central funding, and anyone who travels to the North frequently can see the stark difference. It's that failure to see the bigger picture that I find most surprising about his comments. Sure, as a local councillor he should be always arguing for local needs, but reform of central government funding to give more help to poorer regions has been a long held aim by this Labour Party, and especially since Brexit, where poorer regions benefitting from EU grants lost out. 

As always, it will be the public that decides at the ballot box. 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Blah Blah said:

councillor he should be always arguing for local needs

Arguably, as regards local needs for free(er) flowing traffic and some acknowledgement of expressed wishes he hasn't been. The 'active travel' and particularly the cycling lobby seems to have got far more of his attention than others. In that aspect, at least he would seem to be far more likely to be happy amongst the avowedly private-car hating Greens. A perfectly reasonable stance, of course, but one which certainly doesn't qualify as 'arguing for local needs'. He hasn't, equally, been very obviously supportive of those, his direct constituents I believe, who have been less than enthusiastic about Gala.

Edited 5 hours ago by Penguin68

[Blah Blah]

30 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Arguably, as regards local needs for free(er) flowing traffic and some acknowledgement of expressed wishes he hasn't been. The 'active travel' and particularly the cycling lobby seems to have got far more of his attention than others. In that aspect, at least he would seem to be far more likely to be happy amongst the avowedly private-car hating Greens. A perfectly reasonable stance, of course, but one which certainly doesn't qualify as 'arguing for local needs'. He hasn't, equally, been very obviously supportive of those, his direct constituents I believe, who have been less than enthusiastic about Gala.

Sure. He is ideological driven on many things. He was the person that defended the blanket CPZ policy because he believed that 'if you asked most people in southwark if all parking should be paid for, most would say yes'. A completely unfounded belief not backed by any evidence. In the real world, that policy caused significant local electoral damage for some councillors. I personally see his disillusion with the Labour Party as one of his idealism vs the reality of governance. He will probably be much happier with the Greens.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 17/02/2026 at 20:17, James Barber said:

It is ironic that councillor James McAsh, a self avowed life long marxist who literally has written about wanting to overthrow capitalism, complains that there isn't enough money for councils. 

Wanting long-term systemic change does not stop someone from advocating day-to-day improvements for public services. Your comment makes no sense.