Lambeth local elections 2010 thread

[Gramsci]

Yes I've read yours and noted that while you are not a member of the "send them back" brigade you do line up with those who say "stop them coming". But what's wrong with the Poles? What harm have they done anyone? They're only workers coming here to try to get a better living.

No u dont read peoples post properly. I never said stop them coming. As I have said in previous posts I can understand why some people are concerned about migration.

Your reply is stereotypical of those who think anyone who mentions anything to do with race or migration is therefore anti immigration. Exactly what Brown did.

If anything people like Brown are worse than UKIP. Browns government brought in controls on Bulgarians and Rumanians when they joined in the second wave of East Europeans states to join EU. This was totally unfair and just tokenism to stop core Labour part supporters turning to BNP. Margaret Hodge helped herself to defeat BNP by supporting such policies. The BNP influence did make mainstream parties bring in immigration controls. In that way the far right in this country and Europe have an influence on the general political culture.

For the record (yet again) Ive thought this one through (unlike people like u who have the same knee jerk type reaction from the opposite side of the political perspective as those who want immigration controls.) I oppose all immigration controls. I think that Business and financial elites use immigration and outsourcing factories to other countries to lower wages and conditions. Immigration controls are purely about the needs of business and in the end are divide and rule.

Theres nothing wrong with Poles. Why do I have to repeat myself? Do u actually have any East European friends?

In actual fact some of the Poles I now came here to escape the Right wing Catholic nationalists who ran there country. They prefer it here in London.

 

[greenfox]

I think the conclusion we can draw from these elections is that Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour supporting borough at both Parliamentary and borough council level - only in Bishops and bits of Streatham (and West Norwood for the Tories) is there any large scale support for the Lib Dems or other parties that are not Labour. I wouldnt be surprised if there is discontent in the Lib Dems at their failure - according to the tweets on election counting night listed at onion bag blog http://onionbagblog.com/2010/05/08/lambeth-local-elections-live/ Steve Bradley victorious Vassall Lib Dem Councillor is a possible leadership contender. Lumsden apparently blames the people of Lambeth for the Labour win - http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/8154888.Labour_victorious_in_Lambeth/ - they voted on national issues when they should have been voting on local issues

 

[WarmharbourLane]

I think the conclusion we can draw from these elections is that Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour supporting borough at both Parliamentary and borough council level - only in Bishops and bits of Streatham (and West Norwood for the Tories) is there any large scale support for the Lib Dems or other parties that are not Labour.

Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour-leaning borough - that's always been known. But what the results tell us is more that that electors voted in two general elections on May 6th in Lambeth, not one.

There are areas where the result would have looked very different had the local elections been on a separate day (e.g. Herne Hill, Oval).

I fear for what lies ahead for those of us in council housing in the borough. Labour have said they're giving Lambeth Living another 12mths to sort itself out. That suggests to me that they have an alternative in their back pocket that they'll whip out and push through if needs be. But that's what got us into the mess in the first place - they ferment secret plans and then push them through regardless of tenant views. So I have no faith in any alternative toi Lambeth Living doing any better if they follow the same arrogant approach. Co-operative council my ass.

 

[ajdown]

I think the conclusion we can draw from these elections is that Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour supporting borough at both Parliamentary and borough council level

I think the conclusion is more likely that the average Lambeth voter is incredibly stupid to continue to vote for the party that have screwed up both locally and national for the last four years, and give them another opportunity to do so.

Thankfully, nationally, Labour have finally had their unelected prime minister removed from office by the overwhelming voice of the population, and we can look forward to some real changes if we can get a Tory/Lib Dem coalition government together.

 

[co-op]

But the policies favoured by the Greens would make some things more expensive for them, e.g. having to shop at local shops rather than supermarkets or by increased energy bills or by increasing the cost of running a car.

I'm afraid you just haven't thought this line of attack through.

The overwhelming majority of poor people in Lambeth don't own a car (the majority of ALL Lambeth households don't, and the poorer the ward, the lower the level of registration - down to as low as 12% in some wards). What the Green Party is advocating is fair treatment for the non-car owners. In some cases GP policy in this area is actually re-distributive (charging higher CPZ fees for the largest, most expensive, most polluting cars to fund safe street storage lockers for bicycles).

Energy bills are just going to increase and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that - but the GP has argued for massively increasing the levels of insulation in social housing as a form of wealth re-distribution (meaning that people living in social housing pay lower energy bills) and a method of reducing carbon emissions (see Kirklees council in Yorkshire for an example of this in practise).

Most supermarkets aren't cheaper - except on KVIs. They're also far-flung for most people, thus requiring travel costs of time and money.

The Green Party has signed up to the Equality Pledge - the only party to have done so - which commits it to examining all policy in the light of whether it increases or decreases wealth division, and to only support policy which does the latter.

No I'm not a Labour Party supporter but I do believe in democracy and that councillors elected on a low poll have less legitimacy than those elected on a higher poll (incidentally it was the higher turn-out that wiped out the BNP in Barking). Having said this I think that some electoral reform can be justified. Personally I'd favour smaller one-member wards with councillors elected by the Alternative Vote. Councillors would then be both more representative and closer to the electors.

Of course, other things being equal, the higher the turnout, the higher the legitimacy. But other things weren't equal - this was effectively a General Election vote. That's life. But if Lambeth Labour think this is a massive endorsement of their policies or the implementation of them they're completely wrong imo.

 

[ajdown]

In some cases GP policy in this area is actually re-distributive (charging higher CPZ fees for the largest, most expensive, most polluting cars to fund safe street storage lockers for bicycles).

Let's face it, bicycles are cheap, both to buy and run, especially as they are able to be used without training, licensing, insurance or paying anything towards the cost of maintaining the roads (or pavements) they are being used on. That's even before you start thinking about the laws that are regularly broken by cyclists who have no regard for the safety of those who actually pay for the right to use the roads.

Most people do not want to own or ride bicycles, otherwise they'd do so. It's as simple as that. Providing "free bike parking" is not going to encourage people to change, and further taxation to make owning a car more expensive isn't much of a solution either.

The reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live.

If people want to de-progress themselves back to the stone age and live on a diet of organic mung beans, then that's their choice - but don't drag me back there.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour-leaning borough - that's always been known. But what the results tell us is more that that electors voted in two general elections on May 6th in Lambeth, not one.

There are areas where the result would have looked very different had the local elections been on a separate day (e.g. Herne Hill, Oval).

Yes, overall I would agree with this. Gypsy Hill is a perfect examples, going from Tory to Labour. Even leafy Thurlow threatened the Whelans, with one Tory seat being lost to Labour.

There was some pockets of peculiarities in the local Lambeth vote though.

The gentrification of Clapham has seen a jump from one Labour and two LibDems to three Tories. It was expected that this may be a more slower process, with perhaps three LibDems this time round, and then the Tories taking control at a later stage.

The Oval (my ward) was just weird. Congratulations to the Labour team, who I have been very critical of. They won fair and square, but the recount suggests a very weird alphabetical voting pattern taking place in SW8.

 

[co-op]

Let's face it, bicycles are cheap, both to buy and run, especially as they are able to be used without training, licensing, insurance or paying anything towards the cost of maintaining the roads (or pavements) they are being used on. That's even before you start thinking about the laws that are regularly broken by cyclists who have no regard for the safety of those who actually pay for the right to use the roads.

Most people do not want to own or ride bicycles, otherwise they'd do so. It's as simple as that. Providing "free bike parking" is not going to encourage people to change, and further taxation to make owning a car more expensive isn't much of a solution either.

You're an unpleasant idiot - that much I already knew.

But you are also obviousl completely ignorant of a few facts relating to the subject you feel drawn to comment on, so I'll correct those for you. Sadly that probably won't make you either a nicer person or a more intelligent one, but perhaps it will disuade you from making a fool of yourself quite so publically in the future.

Fact # 1. Cyclists pay for the maintaining of our roads since these are mostly paid for by local councils and thus out of our council taxes, or by the relevant Highway Authority (eg TfL) which comes from central govt tax funds into which cyclists pay their taxes just like everybody else.

Fact # 2. Car-drivers cause massively disproportionately more damage to our roads; the damage caused by weight rises exponentially by a factor of 10^4 - thus a car +driver weighing about 10 times more than a bicycle + driver causes about 10000 times more road damage than a bicycle.

Fact # 3. Nearly all car drivers routinely break the law; speed cameras record an average speed of 34mph in 30mph zones. They also use mobile phones (roughly 10% on recent surveys in North Lambeth), jump red lights drive and park on pavements etc etc. The difference from cyclists' law-breaking is that the consequences of these behaviours is fatal to thousands of people every year.

Fact # 4. Literally millions of UK citizens routinely report that they would prefer to cycle or walk many short urban journeys but feel unable to do so because they feel frightened of cars. Over half of our primary school children would like to cycle to school, less than 1% do. Wherever cars have been de-prioritised or removed people adopt alternatve modes with great enthusiasm.

Fact #5. In areas like Lambeth cycle storage facilities are massively supported by a majority of local residents because so many people live in small flats or high up and can't store bikes safely in their flats or find it very inconvenient to do so.

Fact # 6. The increased tax suggested was on the very biggest, most expensive, most polluting cars. This does not "make owning a car more expensive" - you can pay precisely zero if you buy a low-polluting car, it makes owning the most anti-social type of car more expensive. And why not?

The reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live.

If people want to de-progress themselves back to the stone age and live on a diet of organic mung beans, then that's their choice - but don't drag me back there.

You obviously don't know any of the Green Party's policies so really you ought to shut up, don't you think? IT's obvious that the reason the GP has taken so long to get an MP elected is because f our highly undemocratic and unrepresentative form of govt.

Marvellous use of cliches though (mung beans! - that's hilarious!)- if I have one criticism it would be that you managed to omit "lycra-clad", but although you are consistently unoriginal, you're not smart and perhaps you aren't even aware of just how hackneyed your posts are.

You should stick to gloating about cyclists getting crushed to death by lorries.

 

[se5]

They won fair and square, but the recount suggests a very weird alphabetical voting pattern taking place in SW8.

I agree on the alphabetical voting pattern - this was seen in Vassall Ward (results at http://www.vassallview.com/2010/05/vassall-ward-results-in.html) too where Kingsley Abrams and Steve Bradley got elected plus Adrian Garden.

The first two you might reasonably expect given that they are sittting councillors and so will have some name recognition locally - also (coincidentally?) of course they are at the top of the alphabet.

But the next one? Labour's Adrian Garden doesnt live in the ward and as far as I can tell having spoken to Labour people locally was only selected in the autumn. He therefore would have had virtually no name recognition.

Tracy Ritson (the other Labour candidate) wasnt elected despite having more local connections and having lived locally for some time - I bet if she had been called Tracy Aadvark or similar she would have had more chance been elected!

 

[ajdown]

You should stick to gloating about cyclists getting crushed to death by lorries.

I don't find any unnecessary deaths particularly amusing, as it happens. But don't let that put you off.

Why do these nervous cyclists feel they have to use main roads? There's plenty of back roads and cycle paths they can use, so no need to be nervous of traffic; also of course all these millions of car users that would prefer to be cyclists would remove lots of cars from the roads too.

Of course, if we had a more frequent, reliable, comfortable, affordable public transport system to encourage more people out of their cars in the first place, that would be a better solution all round. But that would cost money, and governments of all colours don't like doing that.

 

[charcol]

The gentrification of Clapham has seen a jump from one Labour and two LibDems to three Tories. It was expected that this may be a more slower process, with perhaps three LibDems this time round, and then the Tories taking control at a later stage.

The result in Clapham Common was interesting, although it resulted in the election of 2 Conservatives and 1 Lib Dem this time. The gentrification has been happening for a long time and it's a ward the Tories have topped the poll in for various elections (Mayoral, Europeans, etc). So I was more surprised that clashing with a General Election didn't return 3 Conservatives.

Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see whether this result has long-term implications for the balance of power in Lambeth. The double election undoubtedly worked in Labour's favour at a local level, but after swinging between Labour administrations and various forms of no overall control in recent history they now have a chance to make it safe territory for many years to come.

The main obstacle to achieving this could be the spending promises they've made, which could be scuppered by the impending cuts from central government that are undoubtedly on the way. Time will tell.

 

[Tricky Skills]

I agree on the alphabetical voting pattern - this was seen in Vassall Ward (results at http://www.vassallview.com/2010/05/vassall-ward-results-in.html) too where Kingsley Abrams and Steve Bradley got elected plus Adrian Garden.

The first two you might reasonably expect given that they are sittting councillors and so will have some name recognition locally - also (coincidentally?) of course they are at the top of the alphabet.

But the next one? Labour's Adrian Garden doesnt live in the ward...

This is the exact same pattern at the Oval. Brown, for the LibDems, Edbrooke for Labour and Hopkins for Labour. Poor old LibDem Sawdon, displaced after sixteen years in the Oval, for having the wrong name.

As for Edbrooke? Yes, yes, I have been harsh, and the good lady lady had the decency to have a friendly chat with me. I wish her well. But... she lives in Herne Hill. Her Labour colleague (and Oval local), poor old Karim Palant was knocked out because of his second name.

The 'lost' 150 Oval votes at 2:45 in the morning was something else entirely

 

[Tricky Skills]

And here's the new cabinet, as voted on by the 44 Labour councillors on Sunday night. Really pleased to see that Cllr Nosegbe has been elected.

 

[Gramsci]

Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour-leaning borough - that's always been known. But what the results tell us is more that that electors voted in two general elections on May 6th in Lambeth, not one.

There are areas where the result would have looked very different had the local elections been on a separate day (e.g. Herne Hill, Oval).

I fear for what lies ahead for those of us in council housing in the borough. Labour have said they're giving Lambeth Living another 12mths to sort itself out. That suggests to me that they have an alternative in their back pocket that they'll whip out and push through if needs be. But that's what got us into the mess in the first place - they ferment secret plans and then push them through regardless of tenant views. So I have no faith in any alternative toi Lambeth Living doing any better if they follow the same arrogant approach. Co-operative council my ass.

Sadly I think ur correct. After posting up about the meeting I attended I would have thought Council Tenants would have been better off voting LibDem. Incredible as that seems.

And also I think there is an issue of how the leadership of the the Labour party in Lambeth discuss and decide things off the radar. Ive heard it more than once from different quarters. Things are discussed then rushed through Cabinet with little consultation.

Now that New Labour are back in power in Lambeth if I was representing Council tenants I would first ask,

1) About the Commission into Mutualism
2) For a new ballot on the ALMO after the twelve months is up.

 

[Gramsci]

Most people do not want to own or ride bicycles, otherwise they'd do so. It's as simple as that. Providing "free bike parking" is not going to encourage people to change, and further taxation to make owning a car more expensive isn't much of a solution either.

The reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live.

If people want to de-progress themselves back to the stone age and live on a diet of organic mung beans, then that's their choice - but don't drag me back there.

I cycle every day. Ive noticed an increase in cycle commuting into central London. This started with Red Kens promotion of cycling and is being continued by Boris with the cycle hire scheme. There has been a radical increase in cylcle parking and also cycle friendly routes.

Also I now people who got bikes through work as there is a tax incentive scheme to encourage bike use. This I have been told is popular.

The present Green party has adopted progressive social policies. Like the Equality pledge, opposition to Iraq war etc. I noticed when they won there seat in Brighton there successful candidate was emphasising these policies. The Grren Party ,at the moment , is liberal, tolerant and socially progressive in a way that New Labour has forgotten.

Thats not to say that u are incorrect about the Green movement. There are many variants and antecendants. Some of which are socially reactionary. See Goldsmith ( not Zac but the one who died recently) for example. There imo is always a tendency in the Green movement towards Mung bean.

Red Ken also did his best (despite Gordons PFI) to improve public transport. Mainly the bus network. Ive noticed more bus lanes. Including one just finished that goes from Bloomsbury all the way to Knightsbridge.

Many Councils are encouraging Car Clubs. Which ive heard work well. There will be little reason for many people to own a car in London in the future.

 

[ajdown]

Glad you choose to cycle every day, but let's not forget the many for whom cycling is just not an option, whatever the reason - even if every road in London was completely traffic-free.

Hence the preference for better public transport, rather than the 'green' option of just taxing car owners off the road.

 

[tarannau]

Who are these 'many' then AJ? Even the most corpulent, unfit souls are generally capable of cycling. Indeed it may even do them so good

And besides this is a world removed from your wish to see 'lycra louts' removed from main roads so that cars can plough on unaffected, unencumbered by caution for pedestrians or cyclists.

Frankly, you're being an utter tool as usual, trying very hard to cause offence. What happened to you as a child - did a fall from a small bicycle leave you terrified for life or something?

 

[co-op]

Hence the preference for better public transport, rather than the 'green' option of just taxing car owners off the road.

How strange.

You've just said "the reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live." and now you're advocating better public transport which is, of course, Green Party policy.

And - for the third time now, but I know you ain't the sharpest knife in the box - I've nowhere advocated 'taxing cars off the road', but increasing CPZ charges on the largest, most expensive and worst-polluting cars. You could still park for free if you don't want to driver some ridiculous tank.

 

[ajdown]

Just because something happens to be "green party policy" doesn't mean I like their other policies. There are policies from pretty much all the parties that I can agree with, and others that I don't like. It's why I struggle with elections, because there is no one party that really represents my thoughts on the majority of issues.

I say we should tax mung beans instead and see how they feel.

 

[Gixxer1000]

You're an unpleasant idiot - that much I already knew.

But you are also obviousl completely ignorant of a few facts relating to the subject you feel drawn to comment on, so I'll correct those for you. Sadly that probably won't make you either a nicer person or a more intelligent one, but perhaps it will disuade you from making a fool of yourself quite so publically in the future.

Fact # 1. Cyclists pay for the maintaining of our roads since these are mostly paid for by local councils and thus out of our council taxes, or by the relevant Highway Authority (eg TfL) which comes from central govt tax funds into which cyclists pay their taxes just like everybody else.

Fact # 2. Car-drivers cause massively disproportionately more damage to our roads; the damage caused by weight rises exponentially by a factor of 10^4 - thus a car +driver weighing about 10 times more than a bicycle + driver causes about 10000 times more road damage than a bicycle.

Fact # 3. Nearly all car drivers routinely break the law; speed cameras record an average speed of 34mph in 30mph zones. They also use mobile phones (roughly 10% on recent surveys in North Lambeth), jump red lights drive and park on pavements etc etc. The difference from cyclists' law-breaking is that the consequences of these behaviours is fatal to thousands of people every year.

Fact # 4. Literally millions of UK citizens routinely report that they would prefer to cycle or walk many short urban journeys but feel unable to do so because they feel frightened of cars. Over half of our primary school children would like to cycle to school, less than 1% do. Wherever cars have been de-prioritised or removed people adopt alternatve modes with great enthusiasm.

Fact #5. In areas like Lambeth cycle storage facilities are massively supported by a majority of local residents because so many people live in small flats or high up and can't store bikes safely in their flats or find it very inconvenient to do so.

Fact # 6. The increased tax suggested was on the very biggest, most expensive, most polluting cars. This does not "make owning a car more expensive" - you can pay precisely zero if you buy a low-polluting car, it makes owning the most anti-social type of car more expensive. And why not?



.

Fact #7 Most family MPVs are taxed at the highest rate.

Fact #8 "City cars" (surely an oxy moron) are encouraged by this form of taxation.

Fact # 9 Even if endeavour to minimise your carbon footprint by cycling to work you are still penalised for having a "gas guzzler" parked outside of your house.

Fact #10 A car is rated according to manufacturers data, actual emissions are actually a direct function of servicing and basic maintenance.

Fact #11 No allowance is made for whole life costing.

 

[Gramsci]

Glad you choose to cycle every day, but let's not forget the many for whom cycling is just not an option, whatever the reason - even if every road in London was completely traffic-free.

Hence the preference for better public transport, rather than the 'green' option of just taxing car owners off the road.

Yes and Ive just read in Standard that Boris is taking "Tube Lines" back into TFL ownership. Gordon Brown pushed for a PPP for the Underground and its been a disaster. So hopefully things will improve.

 

[Gixxer1000]

but increasing CPZ charges on the largest, most expensive and worst-polluting cars. You could still park for free if you don't want to driver some ridiculous tank.

What has size got to do with it? My 7 seater car (band G) is more fuel efficient and less polluting than my motorbike (free).

 

[Gixxer1000]

Yes and Ive just read in Standard that Boris is taking "Tube Lines" back into TFL ownership. Gordon Brown pushed for a PPP for the Underground and its been a disaster. So hopefully things will improve.

They can only get better, its a disgrace that I can (if I was so inclined) presently drive into the city at rush hour faster than I could get in by Tube.

 

[co-op]

Fact #7 Most family MPVs are taxed at the highest rate.

Fact #8 "City cars" (surely an oxy moron) are encouraged by this form of taxation.

Fact # 9 Even if endeavour to minimise your carbon footprint by cycling to work you are still penalised for having a "gas guzzler" parked outside of your house.

Fact #10 A car is rated according to manufacturers data, actual emissions are actually a direct function of servicing and basic maintenance.

Fact #11 No allowance is made for whole life costing.

A lot to answer here - too much for my energy levels at this time of the evening - but yes there are problems with using the CPZ fees as a behaviour-change levy; probably the fairest form of "green" taxation would be on fuel thereby directly penalising the unwanted outcome ie emissions. But that is a central govt option only and the discussion was about options for local govt.

Re Fact # 10, though, I would argue that actual emissions are dictated by multiple factors, not least the driving style of the individual motorist; maybe it's my imagination but big 4x4s seem to attract men who like driving like idiots - particularly the 20 yard foot-down-hard sprint followed by dropping anchor. No amount of servicing or maintainance is going to sort that out.

 

[co-op]

What has size got to do with it? My 7 seater car (band G) is more fuel efficient and less polluting than my motorbike (free).

Size is relevant to it because the bigger and heavier the car, generally the less efficiently it carries its median load of one person.

 

[Gixxer1000]

but big 4x4s seem to attract men who like driving like idiots

Your prejudices are blinding you.

 

[co-op]

Your prejudices are blinding you.

Quite possibly.

I'd say there are reasons to believe that 4x4s in a place like London will attract a certain type of aggressive/defensive driver. These cars are certainly advertised and sold (and presumably therefore bought) on emotional grounds - they embody "escape", "freedom", "safety". The grim rational reality of urban driving offers none of these things. They certainly aren't bought for going off-road etc.

One key element of the emotional message is "safety"; I put this in inverted commas because it's not actual safety - as in the sort of thing that Volvo used to punt their motors on. But "safety" from the various threats that lurk on the urban street - primarily of course other people. This "safety" is illusory since it merely addresses urban paranoia, the source of which is inside the driver, not outside the car. But frightened people often behave aggressively ime.

They are also status displays; they are unnecessarily large, they are usually blinged as standard, they demonstrate the owners' ability to consume more than their fair share of space and resources (literally, 'power'); people who feel the need to demonstrate their superiority in this way will (again, ime) tend to do that across the board; aggressive, space-demanding, get-out-of-my-way driving is another way to achieve the same status display.

Why wouldn't you drive like this if you drive a car that labels you a "Maverick", or a "Ranchero" etc etc? You are a law-breaker, a free-spirit. A Real Man. The fact that you are actually a suburban actuary or whatever does not mitigate this effect, it exaggerates it since the reality is rather shaming and must be publically denied as emphatically as possible.

But you'd surely be right in your suggestion that since I believe this, my observations are likely to be guided by these beliefs. I'd welcome it if some young keeny-bean psychologist went and did a study on it.

 

[T.H.R]

Why do these nervous cyclists feel they have to use main roads? There's plenty of back roads and cycle paths they can use, so no need to be nervous of traffic

When I started cycling from Tulse Hill to Borough, I used to go through the back roads, like Shakespeare Road and down by Myatts Fields. To be honest I found it safer and more convenient to use the main roads, where there are bus lanes and you get less erratic driving to contend with.

I can understand why people are nervous of cycling through London streets though - main roads or otherwise - and to be honest, unless you've cycled around them yourself, you're not really in a position to dismiss people's concerns out of hand.

 

[happyshopper]

The fact that you are actually a suburban actuary or whatever does not mitigate this effect, it exaggerates it since the reality is rather shaming and must be publically denied as emphatically as possible.

This shows the dangers of generalising. I'm not sure if I'm the only suburban actuary in Brixton but I most certainly don't own a "Maverick", or a "Ranchero". Nor am I ashamed of my profession.

 

[co-op]

This shows the dangers of generalising. I'm not sure if I'm the only suburban actuary in Brixton but I most certainly don't own a "Maverick", or a "Ranchero". Nor am I ashamed of my profession.

You've missed my point. It wasn't that being an actuary was objectively shaming; just that if you're trying to project a maverick ranchero persona via your car, then it is likely to be.

You aren't, therefore it isn't.