Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[Smick]

But that isn’t corruption

it depends on your definition of what “corrupts” means.

I’m happy with what I’ve written.

 

[teuchter]

Doubt it - most against seem to be people that drive everyday which is a small fraction of people.

This thread is a good summary of the situation I think.

That thread certainly explains a few things.

Feels like it confirms my belief that it could be fixed with a few targeted interventions. Maybe some that are less involved than redesigning the main junction. And It's certainly frustrating that Lambeth can't/won't react swiftly in adapting the plan.

It also is an example of how motor traffic will fill up whatever space you give it. And because it's effectively been given this way to dodge the traffic lights (which the buses can't) that's what it's going to do.

 

[Bus Stopped]

That thread certainly explains a few things.

Feels like it confirms my belief that it could be fixed with a few targeted interventions. Maybe some that are less involved than redesigning the main junction. And It's certainly frustrating that Lambeth can't/won't react swiftly in adapting the plan.

It also is an example of how motor traffic will fill up whatever space you give it. And because it's effectively been given this way to dodge the traffic lights (which the buses can't) that's what it's going to do.

I have to say I think it’s absolute nonsense. Sealing off the side roads will just make the grid lock worse on the main road. The traffic lights at the cinema could be given priority for buses but given it goes in to a single lane I’m not sure how much difference it will make. The fact is that unless LTNs fundamentally change people’s behaviours around commuting then I’m not sure how much they will achieve without wider measures and run the risk of alienating people.

 

[teuchter]

Sealing off the side roads will just make the grid lock worse on the main road.

How so?

The suggestion is simply to stop giving private vehicles a bypass route that isn't available to buses, essentially via the purple area. If lots of people are turning on and off the main road then of course that's going to jam things up. The explanation of what's happening makes sense to me.



If private vehicles are not able to get through the area more quickly than buses, then fewer private vehicles will attempt to use the route that the buses need to use.

 

[Bus Stopped]

How so?

The suggestion is simply to stop giving private vehicles a bypass route that isn't available to buses, essentially via the purple area. If lots of people are turning on and off the main road then of course that's going to jam things up. The explanation of what's happening makes sense to me.

View attachment 413858

If private vehicles are not able to get through the area more quickly than buses, then fewer private vehicles will attempt to use the route that the buses need to use.

No they will just all go on to the main road. It will make very little difference.

 

[Smick]

That thread certainly explains a few things.

Feels like it confirms my belief that it could be fixed with a few targeted interventions. Maybe some that are less involved than redesigning the main junction. And It's certainly frustrating that Lambeth can't/won't react swiftly in adapting the plan.

It also is an example of how motor traffic will fill up whatever space you give it. And because it's effectively been given this way to dodge the traffic lights (which the buses can't) that's what it's going to do.

100%. You could demolish half the high triad and build a three lane dual carriageway as far as Croydon, without traffic lights, and it will be at or beyond capacity on day one of operation.

What I don’t understand about those tweets is that he seems to suggest blocking off Sunnyhill, Pinfold, Shrubbery. How do people then leave Valley Road?

 

[edcraw]

100%. You could demolish half the high triad and build a three lane dual carriageway as far as Croydon, without traffic lights, and it will be at or beyond capacity on day one of operation.

What I don’t understand about those tweets is that he seems to suggest blocking off Sunnyhill, Pinfold, Shrubbery. How do people then leave Valley Road?

Suggestion has been made to remove the north Valley Road filter so that becomes the exit rather than the high road:

 

[Smick]

Suggestion has been made to remove the north Valley Road filter so that becomes the exit rather than the high road:

That’s maybe a good idea.

I’m uncomfortable with the language of that tweet, calling people queue jumpers and sneaky selfish sods for coming from those roads. If you ask the people in those cars, they’ll tell you that they didn’t want to drive along them, but it’s the only exit point of the purple zone in the LTN. They’re using it as designed.

However, he has a very good point that the additional traffic exiting those roads absorbs the capacity of that stretch between the library and St Leonard’s and that is what is causing delays.

Make SCN the exit and you free up that stretch. What happens to all the volume aspirations along Valley Road that the Dutch planners have set though?

 

[edcraw]

That’s maybe a good idea.

I’m uncomfortable with the language of that tweet, calling people queue jumpers and sneaky selfish sods for coming from those roads. If you ask the people in those cars, they’ll tell you that they didn’t want to drive along them, but it’s the only exit point of the purple zone in the LTN. They’re using it as designed.

However, he has a very good point that the additional traffic exiting those roads absorbs the capacity of that stretch between the library and St Leonard’s and that is what is causing delays.

Make SCN the exit and you free up that stretch. What happens to all the volume aspirations along Valley Road that the Dutch planners have set though?

Maybe agree with you on the language but the attitude of very many drivers is inherently selfish imo and why we need LTNs.

 

[Smick]

Maybe agree with you on the language but the attitude of very many drivers is inherently selfish imo and why we need LTNs.

What he needs to say is that he agrees with the objectives of the LTN but it has been incorrectly designed.

Unfortunately some people are afraid to criticise the LTN, or even our weasel councillors or council officers who implemented it, because they think it makes them anti LTN. When, in fact, most people want an effective and efficient LTN and criticism of it is a healthy part of that.

 

[Cat Fan]

What he needs to say is that he agrees with the objectives of the LTN but it has been incorrectly designed.

Unfortunately some people are afraid to criticise the LTN, or even our weasel councillors or council officers who implemented it, because they think it makes them anti LTN. When, in fact, most people want an effective and efficient LTN and criticism of it is a healthy part of that.

Most people just want to get to work/school on time and that's not happening at the moment

 

[edcraw]

What he needs to say is that he agrees with the objectives of the LTN but it has been incorrectly designed.

Unfortunately some people are afraid to criticise the LTN, or even our weasel councillors or council officers who implemented it, because they think it makes them anti LTN. When, in fact, most people want an effective and efficient LTN and criticism of it is a healthy part of that.

You have a point that supporters can be afraid to criticise a LTN (although I think we’re seeing that now) but think that’s a product to the opposition (OneLambeth / Lambeth LTN Watch / Social Environmental Justice / failed Tory councillors / crap shock jock radio presenters etc etc) being focused on opposing the principle of any and all traffic management measures rather than working to make them better.

The situation in Streatham seems to be the first actual negative aspect of Lambeth’s LTNs despite predictions of chaos from all the other ones.

Important to remember LTNs are implemented initially as trials precisely so changes can be made - obviously what’s happening in Streatham could have be predicted to some degree but now there’s actual evidence and so proper measures can be implemented to help.

 

[Smick]

Most people just want to get to work/school on time and that's not happening at the moment

If the buses were running correctly, people would use them.

And if it were springtime, people would think “hmm, I might buy a bike”

I’ve lived in London for 15 years and can tell you that, in good weather, nothing beats cycling. I get into town from Tulse Hill in 30 minutes and can park anywhere. And it’s all free.

And getting to and from work? Nothing is better than public transport, if it is efficient and has space. When I used to commute, I would never have changed it for a car journey. I had half an hour to think about the day ahead and to listen to podcasts and music.

People want to cycle to work and school. People don’t want to drive, don’t want to sit in traffic, don’t want to pay for petrol and parking and get their car damaged when they park it.

People want LTNs. But it has to be cleverly implemented and not just done for the sake of it. By the time this LTN is resolved, the anti LTN feeling will be too far entrenched in those who could have become cyclists or more frequent PT users. So they could make alterations today and people will still dismiss it as being an idealogical disaster.

Worst of all in all this is that we have opposing neighbours. Pro and anti. Zealots and lunatics. Vandals and trolls. On both sides. It’s dividing the neighbourhoods and is a rich breeding ground for anti social behaviour.

 

[thebackrow]

it depends on your definition of what “corrupts” means.

I’m happy with what I’ve written.

It really doesn’t. Corruption has a meaning and trying to tar honest councillors with that brush, or referring to them as “weasels” because you don’t like their policies lowers the standard of debate and damages our democracy. If you are throwing those sort of terms about I think councillors have a completely justified right to disengage or ignore.

 

[thebackrow]

If the buses were running correctly, people would use them.

And getting to and from work? Nothing is better than public transport, if it is efficient and has space. When I used to commute, I would never have changed it for a car journey.

That’s a nice idea, but all the evidence is that you do need to make driving more difficult and expensive to get people out of their cars. I have a customer who lives in Clapham old town and hasn’t used public transport in 30 years. They drive literally everywhere.
People call for free public transport as if that will work miracles, but then why are the LTN protests and meetings crammed with grey hairs who already have free public transport? The trading estate near me is crammed with staff cars because there is free parking. So people drive (and complain about the LTNs)

Worst of all in all this is that we have opposing neighbours. Pro and anti. Zealots and lunatics. Vandals and trolls. On both sides. It’s dividing the neighbourhoods and is a rich breeding ground for anti social behav

The anti line about “divided communities” is part of this. As is your own description of councillors as. “Corrupt weasels”.
There is not vandalism “on both sides”, nor anti social behaviour.

The reality is, as shown by any representative surveys, support for LTNs is broad but fairly shallow. (They’re a good thing, but they don’t by themselves solve all the problems of transport, pollution etc). Vs the opposition which is narrow but deep - a small number of people who feel very strongly. High levels of anger. Every ltn is an abominable disaster.

 

[teuchter]

No they will just all go on to the main road. It will make very little difference.

No! They are using the bypass route because it's quicker than staying in the flow pf traffic along the main road. They'd not be using it if it wasn't quicker.

Block the bypass route and make them use the main road, and they will be faced with a slower journey. And a certain proportion will choose not to attempt the journey, because it's now gone over the threshold they are prepared to tolerate.

You might say: but if the aim of removing the bypass is to speed up the flow on the main road... then you are speeding up that option for the car users, and hence they simply switch to that route, and that's why you believe they'll all just go on the main road.

But that's not what happens - the traffic on the main road will find a new equilibrium, determined largely by the slowness that private vehicles are prepared to tolerate - however, the significant difference is that the buses are now included in this flow, rather than being forced into their own much slower flow.

This is all assuming that the analysis in that Twitter thread is correct, of course.

But it explains a couple of slightly puzzling things - why is the peak-hour congestion reaching a greater level than pre the LTN, even after it having some time for people to change journey habits? You would expect the peak congestion to reach a similar level as before, because it's mainly determined by what drivers will tolerate. Why are they tolerating greater congestion now, than they did before? Well, the answer is that they probably aren't - the private vehicles, using these bypasses, are managing to get through the area at a level of slowness similar to before. However, the buses aren't, because they can't do the same thing, and they aren't governed by the same kind of equilibrium - bus traffic can't "evaporate" because it's pre-determined by timetables and so on.

It also maybe explains the reports of 50 buses queued up ... why is there a giant queue of buses instead of a more mixed queue of buses & private vehicles? Possibly because the private vehicles are bypassing that queue.

And maybe it explains why there seemed to be reports of things gradually settling down - but then getting worse again recently. Is it because more drivers and/or their navigation systems are figuring out that these bypasses can save them time?

 

[teuchter]

Here's a route that Waze suggests if I ask to travel in the evening rush hour. And it matches what is being observed in that Twitter thread.



I assume that when the LTN was being designed, it was thought that this would be too convoluted a route to be attractive as a bypass. However, this turns out not to be the case. That's the point of a trial period, to find this kind of thing out.

The solution is to block it. That doesn't mean blocking all side roads from the High Rd - it just means doing something to stop this being a quicker route at peak times.

 

[Smick]

No! They are using the bypass route because it's quicker than staying in the flow pf traffic along the main road. They'd not be using it if it wasn't quicker.

What is the bypass route? I am trying to work it out. Is it left turn at Pendennis and then back onto the A23 at Sunnyhill?

From what I can tell, if traffic from Sunnyhill and Pinfold is causing this issue, which seems plausible, is it not because traffic from Valley Road, which would previously have left via Leigham Court or Streatham Common North, now has to leave via those two roads.

I can't envisage anyone trying to shorten their distance by turning off the main road, especially when to do so would require them to be at the front of the queue at the Odeon with a green light in front of them.

 

[teuchter]

What is the bypass route? I am trying to work it out. Is it left turn at Pendennis and then back onto the A23 at Sunnyhill?

From what I can tell, if traffic from Sunnyhill and Pinfold is causing this issue, which seems plausible, is it not because traffic from Valley Road, which would previously have left via Leigham Court or Streatham Common North, now has to leave via those two roads.

I can't envisage anyone trying to shorten their distance by turning off the main road, especially when to do so would require them to be at the front of the queue at the Odeon with a green light in front of them.

See my post directly above.

I imagine there are several slightly different bypass routes. Looks like you can also turn left onto Gracefield Rd going south. But the effect is to funnel re-emerging traffic back onto the main road at junctions with no traffic lights, at the ends of Pinfold/Sunnyhill Roads.

 

[Smick]

It really doesn’t. Corruption has a meaning and trying to tar honest councillors with that brush, or referring to them as “weasels” because you don’t like their policies lowers the standard of debate and damages our democracy. If you are throwing those sort of terms about I think councillors have a completely justified right to disengage or ignore. View attachment 413894

I did not use the expression corruption or accuse anyone of corruption in the terms you portray above.

Absolute power corrupts does not mean that those corrupted receive undue reward. It means to work in a way contrary to what is expected of the person or thing doing the role.

My computer hard drive can become corrupted. It does not mean that it has taken backhanders.

You can focus on a single definition, using a form of the word I did not use, if you wish. But you must know that I did not mean that definition.

As is your own description of councillors as. “Corrupt weasels”.

You have used quotes there. Kindly point me to where I have posted those words, and in that order.

 

[Smick]

See my post directly above.

I imagine there are several slightly different bypass routes. Looks like you can also turn left onto Gracefield Rd going south. But the effect is to funnel re-emerging traffic back onto the main road at junctions with no traffic lights, at the ends of Pinfold/Sunnyhill Roads.

Sorry, we were both typing at the same time. I am surprised that people are taking this route, but it must be the case.

I wonder what time benefit it gives.

I have heard of people who are diverting into the Streatham Hill LTN at Wavertree to come out at Amesbury in order to skip a few cars up the line.

 

[teuchter]

I wonder what time benefit it gives.

I can imagine a pattern whereby the first few cars to do it, while the main road is flowing slowly but still flowing, gain only a marginal advantage. But then, once you have more and more cars trying to emerge back onto the High Road, this causes the High Road flow (north of those points) to start to slow down; the advantage becomes greater in relative terms, and then you have kind of feedback loop where the High Rd gets worse and worse and ends up as a queue of virtually stationary buses.

 

[Bus Stopped]

If the buses were running correctly, people would use them.

And if it were springtime, people would think “hmm, I might buy a bike”

I’ve lived in London for 15 years and can tell you that, in good weather, nothing beats cycling. I get into town from Tulse Hill in 30 minutes and can park anywhere. And it’s all free.

And getting to and from work? Nothing is better than public transport, if it is efficient and has space. When I used to commute, I would never have changed it for a car journey. I had half an hour to think about the day ahead and to listen to podcasts and music.

People want to cycle to work and school. People don’t want to drive, don’t want to sit in traffic, don’t want to pay for petrol and parking and get their car damaged when they park it.

People want LTNs. But it has to be cleverly implemented and not just done for the sake of it. By the time this LTN is resolved, the anti LTN feeling will be too far entrenched in those who could have become cyclists or more frequent PT users. So they could make alterations today and people will still dismiss it as being an idealogical disaster.

Worst of all in all this is that we have opposing neighbours. Pro and anti. Zealots and lunatics. Vandals and trolls. On both sides. It’s dividing the neighbourhoods and is a rich breeding ground for anti social behaviour.

Great post.

 

[Bus Stopped]

No! They are using the bypass route because it's quicker than staying in the flow pf traffic along the main road. They'd not be using it if it wasn't quicker.

Block the bypass route and make them use the main road, and they will be faced with a slower journey. And a certain proportion will choose not to attempt the journey, because it's now gone over the threshold they are prepared to tolerate.

You might say: but if the aim of removing the bypass is to speed up the flow on the main road... then you are speeding up that option for the car users, and hence they simply switch to that route, and that's why you believe they'll all just go on the main road.

But that's not what happens - the traffic on the main road will find a new equilibrium, determined largely by the slowness that private vehicles are prepared to tolerate - however, the significant difference is that the buses are now included in this flow, rather than being forced into their own much slower flow.

This is all assuming that the analysis in that Twitter thread is correct, of course.

But it explains a couple of slightly puzzling things - why is the peak-hour congestion reaching a greater level than pre the LTN, even after it having some time for people to change journey habits? You would expect the peak congestion to reach a similar level as before, because it's mainly determined by what drivers will tolerate. Why are they tolerating greater congestion now, than they did before? Well, the answer is that they probably aren't - the private vehicles, using these bypasses, are managing to get through the area at a level of slowness similar to before. However, the buses aren't, because they can't do the same thing, and they aren't governed by the same kind of equilibrium - bus traffic can't "evaporate" because it's pre-determined by timetables and so on.

It also maybe explains the reports of 50 buses queued up ... why is there a giant queue of buses instead of a more mixed queue of buses & private vehicles? Possibly because the private vehicles are bypassing that queue.

And maybe it explains why there seemed to be reports of things gradually settling down - but then getting worse again recently. Is it because more drivers and/or their navigation systems are figuring out that these bypasses can save them time?

Most of this isn’t true. No one on here is talking about the cars because to be frank most think tough. But there are huge lines of cars that aren’t moving.

I was told, by you amongst others, that it would all calm down. It hasn’t. Apparently large numbers of car users will sit in traffic for hours. Well that’s up to them but it doesn’t solve the issue of public transport.

The buses are lined up in the bus lane, the cars are lined up in the other lane. Blocking off the side roads will do very little in my view.

But in the mean time Lambeth has implemented this in a way that has alienated huge numbers of people in regards to the LTN. Doesn’t seem a good strategy to me.

 

[thebackrow]

I did not use the expression corruption or accuse anyone of corruption in the terms you portray above.

Absolute power corrupts does not mean that those corrupted receive undue reward. It means to work in a way contrary to what is expected of the person or thing doing the role.

My computer hard drive can become corrupted. It does not mean that it has taken backhanders.

You can focus on a single definition, using a form of the word I did not use, if you wish. But you must know that I did not mean that definition.



You have used quotes there. Kindly point me to where I have posted those words, and in that order.

It doesn't have to be in that order - it's insidious. You're talking about elected officials. you've used the words corrupt and weasels. You're implying malfeasance. Those ideas are there now.

Has there been any? No. The council was elected on a policy platform. Councillors don't necessarily personally agree with every bit of council policy (the same as employees of a company might not agree with everything a company does. Mike doesn't have to personally agree with every word on Buzz) but if they want to work within an organisation they have to compromise. Councillors aren't transport experts - the council employs transport professionals to advise, develop policy and implement it,

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely
An observation that a person's sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

That's the origin of the quote and an explanation. So your intent was to say the councillors are immoral? Are you saying the Transport Policy objectives are immoral?

The intent behind the LTN is public, it's consistent with the Transport policy. There appear to be some issues with it as currently implemented. I'm not seeing any morality issue there

 

[Smick]

I can imagine a pattern whereby the first few cars to do it, while the main road is flowing slowly but still flowing, gain only a marginal advantage. But then, once you have more and more cars trying to emerge back onto the High Road, this causes the High Road flow (north of those points) to start to slow down; the advantage becomes greater in relative terms, and then you have kind of feedback loop where the High Rd gets worse and worse and ends up as a queue of virtually stationary buses.

Yeah, the satnav apps are only good if you can travel an exact route at that very second.

They can lead people up roads which were clear when they gave the advice to go up them, but are blocked by the time the driver gets to the end.

I’ve also heard that, with Google maps, if you go through a filter wrongly, and get there quickly, it will be enough for google to start sending others that way. If I requested a route to Streatham from Tulse Hill, hit go, take the P13, google maps will think that the shortest road journey is via Hillside Road and start directing all traffic that way because it has tracked me driving there. It’s the same with those who don’t see / ignore the no vehicles signs.

 

[Bus Stopped]

It doesn't have to be in that order - it's insidious. You're talking about elected officials. you've used the words corrupt and weasels. You're implying malfeasance. Those ideas are there now.

Has there been any? No. The council was elected on a policy platform. Councillors don't necessarily personally agree with every bit of council policy (the same as employees of a company might not agree with everything a company does. Mike doesn't have to personally agree with every word on Buzz) but if they want to work within an organisation they have to compromise. Councillors aren't transport experts - the council employs transport professionals to advise, develop policy and implement it,

That's the origin of the quote and an explanation. So your intent was to say the councillors are immoral? Are you saying the Transport Policy objectives are immoral?

The intent behind the LTN is public, it's consistent with the Transport policy. There appear to be some issues with it as currently implemented. I'm not seeing any morality issue there

I assume part of the problem is the history of the councillors. For instance the way they tried to bulldoze through estate demolitions was definitely immoral, and after a fight back from communities through the courts, and the damning Kerslake Review, they backed down and lost the borough tens of millions of pounds or more.

Then there was the way they smeared residents who campaigned to save libraries was also totally out of order.

And now they have suspended four councillors for supporting a ceasefire in Gaza.

I would say the word weasels is fine, even if they aren't corrupt in the sense that most would understand it.

 

[thebackrow]

I assume part of the problem is the history of the councillors. For instance the way they tried to bulldoze through estate demolitions was definitely immoral, and after a fight back from communities through the courts, and the damning Kerslake Review, they backed down and lost the borough tens of millions of pounds or more.

I don't know all the details but a view from the sidelines? = housing is an issue. The council has an objective (and a moral objective?) to create more affordable housing in the borough. The only land they own is existing estates so somehow if you want more "social" housing you've either got to demolish and rebuild or densify existing estates. Theres no way that existing tenants are going to be happy about having their homes demolished, even if they are completely uneconomic to maintain or bring up to modern standards. (theres no doubt that quite a few estates were badly built and that years of underfunding has meant they're badly maintained too). So theres going to be fight back. Whether that was well managed or not is another matter but once again - councillors are only tangentially linked to stuff that actually happens. They set a policy objective and officers are appointed to deliver it.

Then there was the way they smeared residents who campaigned to save libraries was also totally out of order.

no comment. I can't remember and don't have time to read into it now.

And now they have suspended four councillors for supporting a ceasefire in Gaza.

There is an unimaginable atrocity going on. A vote in Lambeth, or even in Parliament, is going to have absolutely zero impact on whether it continues. So I don't even understand why votes are taking place, let alone why it matters which way an individual votes at them. That's fucked up. But that's just as fucked up at a national labour level. the whole debate is fucked up on a global level.

I would say the word weasels is fine, even if they aren't corrupt in the sense that most would understand it.

I don't. If you want to single out immoral individuals look at tories who have personally profited from policies they've been enacting. Look at the outright corruption around PPE procurement or how commercial interests have damaged public transport or national housing policy or roadbuilding.

There may have been mistakes but I don't think there is any legit issue with the underlying aims of our councillors locally.

 

[Cat Fan]

People want to cycle to work and school. People don’t want to drive, don’t want to sit in traffic, don’t want to pay for petrol and parking and get their car damaged when they park it.

Yes, sort of, but the public transport isn't quite as good in Streatham Wells and car ownership is a bit higher. Cycling on A23 is still required to get to a lot of places and that's currently terrifying and offputting.

Then there is a large and growing contingent of people who feel that they need to use private vehicles, which includes elderly, people with disabilities, tradespeople, delivery drivers, taxi drivers and so on.

More cargo bikes would be great but it's a massive cultural shift and we need improved cycle routes on the main roads first because that's by far the most convenient and flattest route to get around. Any trips within LTNs are easier to walk than cycle to be honest because LTNs are not that big. So I don't really see them as helping cyclists that much apart from a small number of experienced cycling experts who can plot complicated routes between them.

People want LTNs. But it has to be cleverly implemented and not just done for the sake of it. By the time this LTN is resolved, the anti LTN feeling will be too far entrenched in those who could have become cyclists or more frequent PT users. So they could make alterations today and people will still dismiss it as being an idealogical disaster.

100% this. Streatham Wells was just not ready for a LTN, much more preparation was required. So it was putting the cart before the horse

 

[Bus Stopped]

I don't know all the details but a view from the sidelines? = housing is an issue. The council has an objective (and a moral objective?) to create more affordable housing in the borough. The only land they own is existing estates so somehow if you want more "social" housing you've either got to demolish and rebuild or densify existing estates. Theres no way that existing tenants are going to be happy about having their homes demolished, even if they are completely uneconomic to maintain or bring up to modern standards. (theres no doubt that quite a few estates were badly built and that years of underfunding has meant they're badly maintained too). So theres going to be fight back. Whether that was well managed or not is another matter but once again - councillors are only tangentially linked to stuff that actually happens. They set a policy objective and officers are appointed to deliver it.


no comment. I can't remember and don't have time to read into it now.

There is an unimaginable atrocity going on. A vote in Lambeth, or even in Parliament, is going to have absolutely zero impact on whether it continues. So I don't even understand why votes are taking place, let alone why it matters which way an individual votes at them. That's fucked up. But that's just as fucked up at a national labour level. the whole debate is fucked up on a global level.


I don't. If you want to single out immoral individuals look at tories who have personally profited from policies they've been enacting. Look at the outright corruption around PPE procurement or how commercial interests have damaged public transport or national housing policy or roadbuilding.

There may have been mistakes but I don't think there is any legit issue with the underlying aims of our councillors locally.

Housing is an issue. But they didn't create more affordable housing, they wasted tens of millions of pounds. And they tried to push through estate demolitions without giving tenants a vote. Something that is widely agreed as morally indefensible. Did any of the councillors volunteer their own homes for demolition so council housing could be built on it? Or is it only council tenants who should be forced to do this?

They were then absolutely slated by the Kerslake Review. Demolishing estates is also very bad for the environment. They attempted to side line the very people living on the estates and were only forced to back down after costly legal battles and community campaigns. The councillors showed disdain for the residents throughout and were the driving force behind demolitions. Those estates are now being refurbished.

Local votes can lead to a groundswell of opposition. But regardless it's utterly authoritarian to suspend four councillors and shows their mindset.

I despise the Tories. But would still describe the Lambeth councillors as weasels and having a disdain for the views of local people in many cases. You don't agree, fair enough.