Forum Topic

South West GLA vote - next week's only interesting election

I may be wrong but I can't see Labour losing Brentford West in the by-election and the Mayoral contest looks done and dusted. However, the local South West seat on the GLA could actually be quite interesting.The initial assumption would be that the Tories are bound to lose but they have a strong candidate in Ron Mushiso and he may benefit from residual anti-ULEZ expansion feeling. The Lib Dems must be favourite but Labour may hope that their strong national polling and the Lib Dems relatively weak performance will be reflected in this vote. I haven't seen any polling and presume there is none for assembly seat level voting but this looks like a genuine three horse race.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 875d98 Comments

In the 2021 elections, the Conservatives had 32% of the vote in SW London.To win the seat, Labour would need a 2.8% swing from Conservative to Labour and the LibDems would need a 1.8% swing from Conservative to LD.No clue about the polling but I would have thought the LDs have a more effective election 'machine' in Richmond and Kingston to get the vote out there given they run the councils and have the local MPs.So advantage probably to the LDs given they are coming from closer behind and Richmond + Kingston combined have about 40% more people than Hounslow.

Michael Robinson ● 875d

I've met Ron and he seems sweet. Interesting backstory too.

Susan Kelly ● 875d

Agreed. He is probably the outsider. To win you would have to assume he adds a percentage point or two to the Tory vote which was pared down to its rock solid base at the time of the last election. In addition he may get a ULEZ boost in a constituency that straddles the old boundary. I don't know anything about politics in Richmond and Kingston, but issues with the councils may compromise the Lib Dems share of the vote.One unpredictable factor is how the Reform candidate will do. They only took 1.6% of the vote last time so any increase is likely to come from Ron Mushiso's share and could be enough to deprive him of the win.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 874d

He maybe sweet and interesting. As a PE teacher, I am surprised he is such an advocate for driving polluting cars in the city by supporting the removal of ULEZ and LTN areas. Desperate Tories trying to grab votes wherever possible, even if our children have to suffer the consequences.

Felicity Goodall ● 874d

And there was me thinking only Sadiq Khan pollutes the area while being transported around London in a gas guzzling Range Rover

Paul Fisher ● 874d

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the ULEZ, Steve Tuckwell showed it is an issue the Conservatives can gain votes on and LTNs don't seem to be a major issue across the broader constituency.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 874d

He also wants to pull up the drawbridge and deny others the opportunity to develop a back story like his.

Paul Campbell ● 874d

"As a PE teacher, I am surprised he is such an advocate for driving polluting cars in the city by supporting the removal of ULEZ and LTN areas. Desperate Tories trying to grab votes wherever possible, even if our children have to suffer the consequences."  When it comes to LTNs perhaps he is thinking of all those kids that live on the peripheral roads of all these taxpayer funded private estates.

Mark Talbot ● 874d

See this week's Private Eye:"a 2023 study of 46 London LTNs found the mean baseline of 1780 vehicles per day within the LTNs had dropped by 850 vehicles. The same study had found that on the LTN's "boundary roads" the mean baseline of 11,706 vehicles per day had also dropped, albeit marginally. by 1.7% (201 vehicles per day).Having scoured international evidence on urban restrictions, the government's research reported that Barcelona had shown "traffic evaporation can occur with such interventions" and planning measures in Mechelen in Belgium had led to a 9% reduction in total car traffic.Excluding all the international evidence from that summary of headline findings was convenient for transport secretary Mark Harper as he set out new requirements for councils last month"I edited out some out of this because I can't be bothered to retype it all, but you can find it in Private Eye (if not in anything published by the government or the Conservative Party .

Guy Lambert ● 873d

It’s actually really interesting how the government put so much effort into finding evidence that LTNs don’t work, are unpopular and create negative impacts and all they could find was abundant evidence proving the contrary. The cat is out of the bag. Nobody has to put with urban side streets being blighted by through traffic any more.

Paul Campbell ● 873d

The world according to Paul Campbell banging away on his keyboard from his tax payers' funded private estate whilst the less privileged deal with the displaced traffic. 

Mark Talbot ● 873d

To provide some balance to Guy's quotes, some of which come from research by Rachel Aldred who runs the Active Travel Academy at Westminster University (with an obvious bias in favour of LTNs and road restrictions), there is this research in which Rachel admits her research has shortcomings (the url reveals the general gist though it's worth reading the article for the full picture):https://newsfromcrystalpalace.wordpress.com/2023/11/21/blocked-off-roads-new-rachel-aldred-report-on-ltns-admits-research-shortcomings-many-limitations-that-traffic-counters-dont-count-all-traffic-and-why-theyre-not-relevant/It includes obvious points such as this one on longer journeys:“It may still be the case that despite relatively little changes in boundary road traffic, those car journeys which continue to be made as before take longer simply because cut-throughs are no longer available." And jaw dropping inaccuracies such as not counting slow traffic (that slow traffic being an inevitable consequence of displacement from LTNs): "As News From Crystal Palace reported in November last year: The mystery of ‘traffic evaporation’ in Low Traffic Neighbourhood figures may have been solved – by a campaigner in Enfield. It turns out that the traffic surveys done by Enfield council for their post LTN data applied a filter so that it did not count any vehicles moving at less than 10km per hour."And this on the effect on boundary roads:"“Finally, it is important that boundary roads are not forgotten. “They do experience often substantial traffic burdens, and just over half the boundary roads in this study saw increases over the monitoring periods (with just under half seeing a reduction)."These and other inaccuracies were exposed on Twitter; I suppose Guy hopes readers of this forum won't know this.Here's another about how cycling czar Will Norman cherry picks data to suit. The heading of the article is "Sadiq Khan’s cycling tsar ‘distorting’ statistics to justify millions on bike lanes" (Sorry it's behind a pay wall): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/21/cycling-sadiq-khan-transport-for-london-enfield-tsar-cyclin/Meanwhile, Times journalist Andrew Ellson trawled through the government's review saying, "I've now read all 79 pages of the govt's LTN review. There is plenty I could say about it but for now I thought I'd focus on unpicking the survey evidence that suggests LTNs are more popular than not. My analysis has found this conclusion to be very misleading":Andrew Ellson's review is here: https://www.socialenvironmentaljustice.co.uk/newpage#AndrewEllsonNotes1Finally, re the above link, the campaign group Social & Environmental Justice is a very good source of background information on LTNs including by exposing biased research:https://www.socialenvironmentaljustice.co.uk/IntheNews [Cue a pile-on of criticism including references to cherry trees.]

Joanna Biddolph ● 873d

The independent Councillor opposed the Home Office's recommendations on Hothouse's licensing and now she is opposing the Secretary of State for Transport's review on LTNs using "News from Crystal Palace", Ediz the unhinged bus driver from Enfield and a toaster reviewer and fellow traveller on the anti-LTN loony ride to refute the DfT's recommendations to Councils to use LTNs to exercise their network management duties.No wonder Councillor Biddolph has become such a liability to her colleagues.

Paul Campbell ● 873d

Cllr. Biddolph - An explanation of your suspension please.

Sonia Beddington ● 873d

Many of us have met Councillor Ron and formed a favourable impression of him.I got to know him a bit doing the litter picking with my boys. Some of us have noticed how he rides the cargo bike at the flower market (the one Biddolph continues to boycot), using the bike lane (the one Biddolph wants to remove).Ron turned up to plant the cherry trees, alongside the late Steve Curran, that Biddolph embarrassed herself and Chiswick over. Despite Ron’s party line positions on ULEZ and LTNs, some of us suspect that he’s a bit more sensible, a bit more evenhanded and a lot less of a nut job. We might be wrong, and time will tell, but having a man with Ron’s background and life story surely must bring a different perspective and sense of proportion that can only help his more narrow minded colleagues and may make him a good representative. As Biddolph descends to the level of the alt right, peddling conspiracy theories while promoting high pollution / traffic policies because that’s what you (the people of ChiswickW4) want to vote for, she risks dragging others down with her. Some of us might like to vote for Ron despite Biddolph’s campaigning for him, but the risk is that she would use my vote for him to claim that this endorses her selfish, hateful and reactionary positions.

Ed Saper ● 872d

Don't beat about the bush, Ed. Tell us how you really feel about Councillor Biddolph.

Susan Kelly ● 872d

Well at least she's not brainwashed and boring 😉

Janice Evans ● 872d

She does seem to trigger an outraged narcissistic howl from the real reactionary element. Those who hate modernity, industry, motorised travel, and anything fossil based (apart from their ideas).

Russell Pearson ● 872d

On the contrary Russell, it is a blessing to have Cllr Biddolph as the face of opposition to cycle lanes and measures to improve areas by reducing the dominance of motor traffic.Supporters of better cycling should be grateful for Cllr Biddolph’s skills at building consensus and the brain power of the Onesies.It gets even better the further down the rabbit hole she goes.

Michael Robinson ● 872d

> it is a blessing to have Cllr Biddolph as the face of opposition to cycle lanes and measures to improve areas by reducing the dominance of motor traffic.That’s as much based in fact as your socks Michael.

Russell Pearson ● 872d

Yes, it’s great to have someone with Cllr Biddolph’s track record of success opposing things being the face of opposition to cycling.

Michael Robinson ● 872d

There is no ‘opposition to cycling’. That’s just culture war BS, a tawdry cheap card played by the self indulgent types, who can’t be bothered to frame an argument.

Russell Pearson ● 872d

Well said Russell.

Mark Talbot ● 872d

Opposing a cycle lane that is being used 4000 times a day and is very visibly being used by a wide variety of people to go about their business is not a culture war but it is definitely opposition to cycling.Claims that cycling infrasucture and car restrictions increase pollution, create hardship for elderly and disabled people, destroy businesses, create ghettos - now that is some Grade A evidence-free culture war juice for dimwits.

Paul Campbell ● 872d

Yes Russell, I agree that opposition to cycling is cheap culture war BS played out by self indulgent types who can’t be bothered to frame an argument.The self indulgent types in this case being many of your fellow OneChiswick members and Cllr Biddolph’s fellow rabbit hole dwellers.

Michael Robinson ● 872d

Thanks Mark

Russell Pearson ● 872d

I agree with what you say, Ed. There's much to recommend about Ron Mushiso. However, several aspects of his campaign leaflet play to the prejudices of the four-wheeled libertarians:The statement "Sadiq Khan's Labour Party have caused TRAFFIC CHAOS across Chiswick".The question "Who benefits from Chiswick High Road being gridlocked every day?" (It patently is not, at least not when I'm on the High Road, which is at some time or times most days).

Robert Fish ● 872d

It's amusing how he talks about freedom of movement for four-wheelers while being a committed Brexiteer. It is a little known fact that Ron is a big fan of Mark Francois.

Paul Campbell ● 872d

"Those who hate modernity, industry, motorised travel, and anything fossil based" Russell's Futurama vision of the future is decidedly dated — the networks of motorways that were supposed to solve congestion just created sprawl and jams. Fossil fuels are last century's technology — the lead in petrol made people stupid and we're still dealing with air pollution and the damage to the climate caused by greenhouse gases. "Modernity" should mean the embrace of new technologies and ways of living, not turning back the clock 50 years! The future: The present:

Ed Saper ● 872d

So it's you causing the gridlock Robert.

Janice Evans ● 871d

The latest poll from Savanta is quite interesting in that, while still showing a big lead for Sadiq Khan, it is single digits in boroughs in the south and west of London. If that were replicated on Thursday then Ron might be in with a chance although it remains a long shot.As for creating traffic chaos in Chiswick, it does seem a bit rich for him to blame Sadiq Khan for a project that was originated and aggressively pushed through by Boris Johnson's transport advisor but the claim about traffic, although exaggerated, is not untrue. I also walk on the High Road regularly and at different times of the day or week. It is more often than not uncongested in the central section but queueing is often significant at the western and eastern sections.Since the C9 upgrade, the queues going west at the Chiswick Lane junction are much reduced and the council has a proposal to remove the bus gate at Acton Lane and restore bus priority which will reduce queues eastbound at the other end so I doubt this claim is the vote winner he thinks it is.

Francis Rowe ● 869d

" it does seem a bit rich for him to blame Sadiq Khan for a project that was originated and aggressively pushed through by Boris Johnson's transport advisor"Ron should be blaming Cllr Peter Thompson who is leader of the Hounslow Conservatives as he was the leader of the Conservative/Independent coalition when the cycleway programme was launched.  I doubt the Conservative administration in Hounslow paid any attention to this at the time but if they had, they could certainly have raised objections to the route.Indeed the decision to change the route away from the A4 west of Chiswick roundabout to the A315 was made while Cllr Thompson was leader of Hounslow. I'm not saying he would have been consulted on this but it was absolutely something strongly lobbied for with TfL by the then head of transport in Hounslow (Chris Calvi Freeman).Gilligan had little direct involvement.  He was appointed by Johnson in 2013.  He was involved with internal TfL planning so resources were prioritised to work on C9 plans not as a top priority but part of the next phase of cycleways after the ones in central London.  Gilligan had been gone for over a year by the time the C9 consultation came out in 2017 so had no involvement at all in the decision making process over the next few years.He was involved in the programme of 'temporary' cycleways as a result of the pandemic and that has influenced the eventual detailed design of C9 but not the outcome.  If the temporary design hadn't happened then I think it was likely the original design would still have been built, just delayed.  Just as the construction is going on at the moment for the section between Kew Bridge and Brentford town centre.  It reflects the original design but is 2-3 years later than intended because of the pandemic.

Michael Robinson ● 869d

In the mind of an anti a protected cycle lane on a High Road is such an abnormality it can only have been conceived of and delivered by a single demonic human. They cannot imagine that multiple people may have been involved over 20 years to bring Cycleway 9 to fruition. Has any local project taken so long, involved so much consultation and had so much cross-party consensus?And remember vote for Ron tomorrow if you are still pro-Brexit; want the Conservatives to pollute our air like they are polluting our rivers and seas; and want race relations damaged in London. Or vote for Gareth Robert who isn't all that great but at least he isn't that.

Paul Campbell ● 869d

Gilligan was Johnson's cycling commissar in 2019 and apppointed to the TfL board the following year. While he may never have been across the detail he was a passionate and forceful advocate for the project and personally made sure it got the funding it needed.Both ULEZ and C9 are Tory projects in their origination if not their implementation so there is a fundamental dishonesty in using them in attack lines in this election. Similarly when they bang on about knife crime, the rise we have seen in London tracks well with the reduction in central government funding for the police and has been replicated across the whole country.Rom Mushiso is a nice guy and a strong candidate and the more people he meets on the campaign trail, the more votes he will get. However, it looks very much from the outside that some Tory strategists have convinced themselves they are geniuses because they won elections where they were up against Jeremy Corbyn. Ron's campaign has little to say about issues that matter to people such as neighbourhood policing, a Piccadilly service at Turnham Green, the Mayor's failure to keep promises on improved outer London bus services and the pointlessness of the rebranded Superloop network. If he pulls off a shock win it will be despite rather than because of the party he represents.

Francis Rowe ● 868d

3rd place from 1st. A 28% drop.I guess his pro-car anti-people policies aren't all that popular after all ...

Paul Campbell ● 866d

The results are in and Ron finished 3rd: the seat switched from Conservative to Liberal Democrat. Ron is a terrific guy when you separate him from his politics, but given that his entire campaign was based on removing ULEZ, removing C9 and removing LTNs, it was hard to support him. In election after election the Tories make it a single issue referendum on rolling back progressive changes that seek to reduce motor car use and mitigate the harm over reliance of cars has done to Chiswick.   There were many issues that Sadiq and Labour were vulnerable on, take your pick of crime, housing, public transport and the environment.   Instead Ron stuck to "freedom of movement" around Chiswick, this nod to the 15 minute conspiracy movement, although an unfortunate reminder of his position on BREXIT. Perhaps some ambitious local Tory politicians, those who've spent 100s of hours campaigning zealously against clean air, some via the Facebook groups run by CCO which became a breeding ground for racism and hate, will reflect on the results and decide that being the party that wants to ban bike lanes won't help their future careers.

Ed Saper ● 866d

The tunnel vision world according to Ed. Proper analysis would say something very different.

Mark Talbot ● 866d

Yep. Both the Lib Dem and Labour candidates announced before the election that they are in favour of cycle lanes while Ron mumbled something incoherent about cyclists needing to share the roads. Pro-cycling politicians being voted in all over London and pro-car ones getting the boot. The best of all - Tony Devenish who has led the campaigns against the Holland Park cycle lane and Cycleyway9 on Kensington High Street. Just the start of more sensible policies coming to West Central. We are going to see a lot more cycle lanes and LTNs coming to London.

Paul Campbell ● 866d

Says the keyboard warrior sat in his tax payer funded private estate not giving a sh1t about those living on boundary roads with his displaced traffic.

Mark Talbot ● 865d

Enjoy them while they last.

N V Brooks ● 865d

Velophiles would do well to read the statements by Fabian Hamilton and also the significant number of caveats he states when supporting acive travel. Motorists have little to fear.

N V Brooks ● 865d

The most vocal opposition to LTNs was in Hackney and Lambeth. Their constituencies saw the largest swings from Susan Hall to Sadiq Khan. And if ULEZ extracted a political price in this election, it's difficult to discern: the outer consistencies also saw a swing from Susan Hall to Sadiq Khan. In fact Khan increased his share of the vote from 2021 as both Greens and LibDems were willing to lend him support over Hall with FPTP. Aside from the electoral effects, the actual evidence that LTNs displace traffic to boundary roads is just as weak as that closing Hammersmith bridge is displacing traffic to Chiswick and Putney bridges.

Tom Pike ● 865d

Has Fabian (whose name I've never heard of before) got any real involvement with London? He's a Labour MP for a constituency in Leeds as far as I can see. I haven't searched for what he said, but why is what he may have said of real relevance to people in  the capital?

Andrew Jones ● 865d

Indeed! Probably of more relevance:“I’m back!  And what a fantastic result - tackling the climate and ecological emergencies & air pollution is the right thing to do!  It was #ULEZ wot won it!”Shirley Rodrigues, Deputy Mayor, Environment and Energy

Tom Pike ● 865d

This election will have far-reaching implications. Mayors worldwide were looking at what might be the electoral backwash from ULEZ. Given the result, others will now follow London’s lead.

Tom Pike ● 865d

Ha ha! The velophobes resorting to some impressive straw clutching there! A glimpse into how defeated they are really feeling today.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Opponents who turn elections into single issue referendums on clean air, LTNs and cycling are doing us an enormous favour. It gives the victors hugely powerful mandates to push harder and faster. That is as true for the Mayor as it is for Gareth Roberts. South West London heard Ronnie Mushiso’s anti-ULEZ and anti-cycling manifesto promises and firmly rejected them.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Paul, I actually think Nigel is making a commendable reassessment in the circumstances. Fabian is treasurer of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling and Walking Group, and is indeed quite sensible about what is needed in terms of encouraging more cycling:‘I see no point in reinventing the wheel. There are other countries that have been through the experiment and settled on an effective way to standardise infrastructure, then finance it and so many of those lessons do translate. There will be some amendments down to allocations of funding, but I don’t see why we need consultations upon consultations. Some things are bleeding obvious. We need separate infrastructure for cyclists – lights, roundabouts, parking – away from the road systems where possible. Nothing would encourage cycling more than whole infrastructure systems away from the motorised road network.’It is indeed bleeding obvious, and good to see consensus building here.

Tom Pike ● 865d

And he is certainly right about endless consultations too. They just prolong the agony for the implacable four-wheel supremacists.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

No Paul, they are essential part of a democracy. The flawed 'consultations' in both Hounslow and Ealing are evidence of how badly wrong the desire to achieve a foregone conclusion can make the process. While you continue your infantile and adversarial stance claiming some position of primacy for cyclists then the longer the issues will continue. Tom has acknowledged the way ahead, try developing the maturity needed to do the same.

N V Brooks ● 865d

Saldy you don't seem to be able to follow what Tom and Fabian are saying - separate infrastructure for cyclists = protected cycle lanes and no consultations because it is bleeding obvious. Fabian, Tom and I all agree on the way forward. You are not going to like it very much.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

There you go again. Your total lack of intellectual rigour and inability to adopt a mature response is as expected but disappointing. I have never opposed dedicated infrastructure save where it creates issues for other road and pavement users. No consultations is not 'bleeding obvious' it is the position of the despot, A new string to your bow it seems.

N V Brooks ● 865d

'..separate infrastructure for cyclists – lights, roundabouts, parking – away from the motorised road systems where possible..'This sounds great for somewhere 'new' like Milton Keynes or Stevenage or Peterborough, but not so easy to impose on an existing urban layout. The other approach is 'integration' which provides an environment where cycles and motor traffic can more safely co-exist in the same space so their riders/drivers learn to respect and accept each others existence as normal human beings trying to get somewhere. This might be more practical in existing complex urban areas and less socially divisive.  If schoolchildren and their parents could bring themselves to cycle down CHR in greater numbers, then I'm sure every car would be super-careful! But now they can say 'Get out of my way and use the cycle track!' so relying on a level of increased segregation that can't possibly be sustained on the whole of the country's road system.

Peter Evans ● 865d

"No consultations is not 'bleeding obvious' it is the position of the despot"It is what Fabian says in the quote Tom provided. One minute you are supporting Fabian's position on cycle infrastructure and the next you are calling him a despot. Make your mind up!

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Sorry Peter - the 1970s is calling and it wants your ideas back. This is what Susan Hall, Ronnie Mushiso and Tony Devenish were proposing. Sadiq Khan, Gareth Roberts and James Small-Edwards support protected cycle infrastructure. Susan's, Ronnie's and Tony's 1970s urban planning policies just got rejected by the electorate. More protected cycle lanes it is. And it can be sustained. By taking the space from cars on main roads and by implementing LTNs to make urban side streets much safer for cycling. Which is exactly what has been and will now continue to happen but probably with more pace and confidence that the public supports these policies.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

He's not saying that at all. He is compplaining about too many consultations not suggesting no consultations. As I said, you really do lack intellectual rigour Paul.

N V Brooks ● 865d

"but I don’t see why we need consultations upon consultations. Some things are bleeding obvious."He is taking about consultations for protected cycle lanes not being needed because they are bleeding obvious solutions. And he is right.Anyway I don't know why motorists get so excited about consultations for cycle lanes. Consultations are not intended to ask motorists for their blessing to install a cycle lane. They are intended to inform the public that the decision has already been taken to install a protected cycle lane and asking for sensible suggestions to enhance and improve the designs. This is another reason why I agree with Fabian. Implacable four-wheeled supremacists are too confused to engage with consultations anyway and they just get extra cross when their wrong opinions are rightly ignored.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Carry on digging your hole.

N V Brooks ● 865d

Not sure telling someone without intellectual rigour that they don’t have that, is going to work, but just a thought.Notable that almost 60% stayed at home. What was Khan’s real %?

Russell Pearson ● 865d

LoL.Are you still such a big fan of Fabian Nigel? We should tell your buddies on the Ealing Forum.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Cope harder Russ.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Think you’re misquoting Beckett there, but as I said.

Russell Pearson ● 865d

I already have, as his candour is refreshing. Good to see you extending your outreach beyond yourlittle enclave.

N V Brooks ● 865d

I thought it was marginally more polite than calling someone a thickarse.

N V Brooks ● 865d

Justin Kruger and David Dunning would have loved this forum.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Sadiq Khan‘s first-preference votes in 2021 for was 1,013,721. In 2024 he got 1,088,225. 7% more Londoners voted for him on Thursday. So the reduced turnout was down to Conservatives sitting on their hands. The biggest loss in the Tory vote was suffered by two candidates who made an ill-advised attempt to stoke the embers of the so-called “war on motorists”. Both Ron Mushiso and Tony managed to turn off 9% of the 2021 electorate from voting Tory, losing the seats to the Lib Dems and Labour in the process. Devenish thoroughly deserved to lose on his own merits for his implacable opposition to anything supportive of the necessary transition from car-based transport. I don’t think Ron even supports such a stance, but deserved to lose for thinking for some reason it would help his cause. He will know better, if there is a next time.

Tom Pike ● 865d

Yes the refreshing candour of a politician who says we should invest a lot of public money in building fully protected infrastructure for cyclists all over the UK and not consult on it because it is such a blindingly obvious thing to do as other countries have so clearly demonstrated.I quite agree. No mealy-mouthed, pandering to the car supremacists from Fabian. We do need more like him in politics to say it how it really is and help the Nigels of the world know exactly where they stand. I am so glad we found common ground after all this time.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

Ye gods and little fishes With each post you further confirm both your pack of intellectual rigour and your inability to comprehend ever simple English. There was a call to curtail excessive consultations not cancel them completely. You can believe what you want to believe, if it makes you happy

N V Brooks ● 865d

OK! I think I've got it Nigel. You support the view of a Labour MP who is the Treasurer of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking that public funds should be spent on creating a comprehensive network of protected cycle lanes all over the UK because it is so blindingly obvious that it works and because we know this from what has happened abroad and that we should curtail consultations to make it happen.Great! I am happy to stand corrected.

Paul Campbell ● 865d

First, over long paragraph wrong and you still can't grasp a basic concept Second paragraph - as last !!!

N V Brooks ● 864d

Glad you are now on record agreeing with Fabian’s plan to invest in high quality protected cycle infrastructure all over the UK and curtail consultations to make it happen. Now you’ll have nothing to complain about when it happens.

Paul Campbell ● 864d

What part of his statement on holding consultations is too difficult for you to comprehend?  Are you actually allowed out unaccompanied?

N V Brooks ● 864d

There is an interesting article in the Spectator from Nick Rogers, the former Tory GLA rep for this area which endorses much of what you say. He goes into the roots of the Conservative failure which he traces back to poor candidate selection which then was compounded by a policy of talking down London.Sadiq Khan is not a man that should excite strong opinions, either positive or negative but he has worked steadily for the interests of London over his first two terms and Londoners clearly decided he deserved a third particularly as no viable alternative was available.He has expanded free school meals, boosted housing starts, increased social housing, continued improvements to our transport network, done everything he can to keep fares down and represented London well.The Tory attack lines against him were crude and underestimated the intelligence of the electorate which was sophisticated enough to recognise that issues like knife crime and travel are complex issues that can't be solved by slogans.Khan was swimming with the tide due to national voting trends and this was probably the main reason for the size of his victory. Andy Street's defeat showed that if your party is performing poorly across the country, doing a good job is no protection.It was interesting to learn that Nick Rogers is no longer a member of the Conservative party and I suspect that it will see more departures after an inevitable lurch to the right after the next General Election. Our local councillors will be aware that a Braverman led party (or worse a Boris/Farage coalition) will not win council seats in Chiswick. Many of these councillors have done good jobs and a switch to independent for the next local election may be their only option to continue doing so.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 863d

The local Tories do have a dilemma going forward. Despite its relative prosperity Chiswick isn't really a natural Labour area - there are plenty of other similar parts of London that don't vote Conservative including the Ealing bits of Chiswick. The party in Hounslow Borough has carved out a niche here with a 'cash cow Chiswick' narrative which to be fair did have some truth to it back in the day. Now, other than the cameras in Grove Park, there doesn't seem to be a council policy that falls unduly on the Chiswick wards and the idea that Cycleway 9 was imposed on the area as a punishment has been exposed as false by its extension into the Labour heartland in Brentford.As an habitual Labour voter I recognise that it is a bad thing for an area not to have an effective opposition but the Tory brand will become toxic in Chiswick if Braverman or someone of her ilk becomes their leader.With the exception of John Todd, I don't see the other councillors having a platform to stand as independents so maybe mass defection to the Lib Dems who have, it has to be admitted, been very effective in representing the parts of Chiswick not in Hounslow.

Mark Evans ● 861d

You could also look what has happened in the neighbouring Ravenscourt Park ward in LBHF.  Over the last 4 council elections, Labour have increased their share of the vote from 33%, 39%, 46% to 57% at the 2022 elections while the Conservatives have generally declined from 44%, 47%, 35% and 25% in 2022.I think in Chiswick the Labour share of the vote has also been increasing over recent elections but not yet enough to deliver more than one cllr.  It will be interesting to see the ward level voting from the mayoral elections when this is available.I don't know why there should be such differences in areas that are beside each other and I would have thought the demographics of Ravenscourt Park would be fairly similar to Chiswick but maybe not.  I haven't looked at the census data.In general Conservative voters are older so maybe there are more older people in Chiswick while in Ravenscourt Park, maybe there has been more replacement with younger residents.

Michael Robinson ● 861d

In Ealing the issues have been both  of total Tory disorganisation and Labour fighting local elections on national issues. There has not been an effective opposition since 2012 and the 'politbureau' has been allowed to build a virtually unassailable position which is dreadful for local democracy 8rrwspective of your political alliegence.

N V Brooks ● 861d

I remember many years ago a Hounslow Labour councillor saying in a minuted meeting that higher CPZ charges in Chiswick were justified 'because the rich bastards can afford it'. A friend of mine who was a local party member, sadly no longer with us, said 'That's us screwed for a generation' and she was not far wrong. Around that time the old Gunnersbury ward had been returning Labour members but the whole of the W4 post code area went Tory.They always played the 'cash cow Chiswick' angle very hard and it worked because there was an element of truth in it. As well as the higher permit charges, parking enforcement was much more rigorous in the area possibly because the attendants were based in the Town Hall. I'm not a Hounslow Borough resident but I get the impression that the council is now bending over backwards to include Chiswick and end this sense of victimhood. Permit charges are the same across the borough and Chiswick initiatives like the Dukes Meadow Footbridge have been given huge financial backing. The council are also very supportive of local community initiatives such as the markets.Although I think it is correct to say that most of the ANPR revenue collected in the borough comes from Chiswick, as local people are aware of the restrictions, that doesn't seem to bother them as much as the permit differential or blanket enforcement of parking did.The Hounslow bit of Chiswick voted Tory because it believed that it was a discriminated against enclave and it needed non-Labour councillors as a balance. If this belief has waned at the same time as the Conservatives are turning to the kind of politics that the vast majority of W4 residents find repulsive, then even the commitment of individual councillors, which must be acknowledged, will not be enough to save them.

Mark Evans ● 861d

Yes, the Chiswick councillors have consistently played the MOPE (Most Oppressed People, Ever) card claiming people in Chiswick are victims but you are overthinking the reasons for voting Conservative.There is a strong correlation between voting Conservative and factors such as age, home ownership, wealth.  The demographics of Chiswick are older, wealthier with more home ownership than the rest of the borough so no surprise they tend to vote Conservative and that would be the same whether they lived in Chiswick, Chester or Chichester.

Michael Robinson ● 861d

But just yards away in Southfield ward, Chiswick residents don't vote for Conservative councillors and haven't done for years. Prosperous, liberal-minded, pro-EU parts of London have been trending towards Labour and the Hounslow part of Chiswick has bucked this trend. Yes, older people tend to vote Conservative but that correlation breaks down if they have a university education which a lot of older people in Chiswick do.

Mark Evans ● 861d

I don't know why the voting patterns are different, literally within a few hundred metres with the majorities in Southfield, Homefields and Ravenscourt Park voting for different parties.  Someone who wasn't from the area and familiar with the borough boundaries would be hard pushed to tell any difference.The only thing I can think of is inertia in that most people won't change their voting habits so change is a result of long term demographic changes as older people die off and the incomers have different views.  Or a major event such as Brexit.  Chiswick voted remain so maybe some Conservative voters haven't been voting Conservative to 'punish' them.

Michael Robinson ● 861d

I used to vote Lib Dem in Southfield ward because I thought I was choosing the most "green" party with a chance of winning.Now the LD councillors have decided opposing environmentally positive projects is the way forward I have changed my mind.Hopefully they will learn, as the Tories did in the mayoral election, that pro-car policies are not quite as popular as all that.

Will Watson ● 861d

As you know Ravenscourt Park is in LBHF which has, or had (I’m not up to date on figures) relatively low council tax and is (or was) generally recognised as efficiently run. Southfield is in Ealing. Several years ago I lived in the Ravenscourt Park area and was happy to vote for the Labour council. Now I’m in Southfield ward, Ealing but would not vote for the Labour council here. I wouldn’t vote conservative right now in a council election as I wouldn’t want my vote misconstrued as indicative of support for the current Tory party which I think is beyond dire. The local Lib Dem councillors in Southfield are quite active and visible which is attractive to (floating) voters like me.

David Turner ● 861d

Often it ends up a wasted vote if we try to change party.

Janice Evans ● 860d

I would tend to vote Labour even in a losing cause - I don't think this is a wasted vote. The local Lib Dems are very active and deserve credit for that but I'd like to hear more about environmental projects they have opposed. The widening of access at the top of Southfield Park has made a small but meaningful difference to my cycling and they make valid points on cross pavement charging.

Mark Evans ● 860d

https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/fishers-lane-traffic-ban-to-stay/

Will Watson ● 860d

Gary Malcolm joined the car lobby on their march in Ealing to protest against LTNs.

Paul Campbell ● 860d

https://ealing.nub.news/news/opinion/ealing-liberal-democrats-walk-alongside-residents-on-the-anti-ltn-march-1619427432

Will Watson ● 860d

None of the three main parties in Ealing have a leg to stand on when it comes to environmental issues and Active Travel. Lib Dems and Conservatives both have an open goal to attack Mason and Costigan on their correspondence with TfL re. Active Travel spending but can't because it would be rank hypocrisy.

Paul Campbell ● 860d

Quite right, because the wholsale implementattion of 21 LTNs in Ealing caused traffic chaos. Those that made a difference are still, rightly in place.

N V Brooks ● 860d

The jury is still out on whether these measures could truly be described as 'environmentally progressive'. Only last night I was forced to dismount on Acton Lane because of the traffic. It is certainly true that, prior to the underpass restrictions, I'd occasionally have to get off my bike heading to the High Road because of queueing on Fishers Lane, but to me the problem has just been displaced rather than solved. In terms of the environmental impact we now drive to Acton rather than Chiswick for the big shop, and if that is the norm, the move is accelerating the drift of the planet to becoming a ball of fire.I don't know as much about the Ealing LTNs but, from what people in the areas affected told me, the principle was sound but the implementation was hurried and there was no modelling which meant they caused more problems that they solved. Ealing is introducing a number of access restrictions in residential areas now which are better planned and seem to have much broader support from residents.

Mark Evans ● 859d

"Ealing is introducing a number of access restrictions in residential areas now which are better planned and seem to have much broader support from residents."Such as?

Paul Campbell ● 859d

As I understand it there are a number of schemes in the pipeline including a West Ealing Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme, a restriction on Hamilton Road by the A406 and at the Golf Links Estate in East Acton.

Mark Evans ● 857d

So not being introduced. Let's wait and see how OneEaling reacts when plans are actually published.

Paul Campbell ● 857d

Golf Links Estate in East Acton? Where abouts in East Acton is that?

Keith Iddon ● 857d

Golf Links Estate is in Southall alongside Greenford Road.Restrictions on Hamilton Road are overdue but Ealing has proposed to  use a sledgehammer when all that is required are two cameras and two signs. Hamilton is a single road not an area scheme and just the type of situation where a restriction would be very useful.

N V Brooks ● 857d

The Golf Links I am referring to is the area north of the A40 and east of Old Oak Common Lane.Ealing Council appears to have switched from a policy of imposing change from above to responding to requests from the community for access restrictions where it believes they are needed.

Mark Evans ● 857d

I believe the Golf Links referred to is the area off Old Oak Common Road behind St Aidans Church and the main shopping area to the north of the junction with the A40.

David Burke ● 857d

Ealing Council responded to requests from the community when they brought in the access restrictions on Fishers Lane. As did Hounslow with the South Chiswick LN.

Paul Campbell ● 857d