Forum topic: The David Burrowes "referendum"

David Hughes, I thought you Green Party people favoured localism. But it looks like that in your case at least, only when local people agree with you.

I bet, that when your lot campaigned and got for the 20 mph speed limit on Hoppers Road and the wretched speed cushions that came with package, you didn't say:

"but what about all those people with back trouble heading up to Chase Farm Hospital on the W9..it's going to make their lives more miserable than they are already"

The bus wheels still have to go over the speed cushions, because of the number of parked vehicles on the road and the volume of traffic in the opposite direction. And you still get some idiots doing 60 down there and handbrake turns into the side roads.

Karl. What makes out think businesses aren't getting a say?

The referendum, with all its faults, is likely to give a far more representative snapshot of local opinion, than the Council's flawed consultation.

Anyway, let's wait for the result and argue more them. Who knows Karl, may be you are right and people really do want the cycle superhighway. I wouldn't want to pre-judge the outcome.

Letter which dropped through my door: "...conduct a referendum of my constituents...". I don't believe that pool includes businesses.

In his comment on my post to this thread on 4 December Paul Mandel said this:

"I bet, that when your lot (Green Party) campaigned and got for the 20 mph speed limit on Hoppers Road and the wretched speed cushions that came with package, you didn't say:
"....but what about all those people with back trouble heading up to Chase Farm Hospital on the W9..it's going to make their lives more miserable than they are already."

To which my reply goes like this:

• the Green Party didn't specify/ask for cushions, that decision was made by the council;
• I've no doubt that the council looked at the weight of the petition which had been put forward, considered the quality of life and safety of hundreds of residents, and decided in the balance with bus passengers' comfort and cost cushions were a reasonable choice.

Now apply that thinking to the proposal to incorporate cycle lanes into Green Lanes. Yes, the effect on residents along the route is an issue to be considered, but so are all the considerations that I mentioned in my earlier piece; we elected a council and a London mayor to take everything into account and to make a decision on our behalf. The residents don't, can't have, a veto (As many a motorway and projected railway line confirm).

As it happens I was at a meeting at the council offices yesterday evening (I'll report on it on another thread, and subsequently ask the webmaster if he can put up any notes of the meeting ). There were various discussions about provision for cyclists and the opposition to the proposed schemes, and then someone gave the predicted population growth for the borough. I won't/can't give the figures from memory, but it was was a very large figure which, at the current per capita level of car use, would have the borough at a standstill. Ways have to found to reduce car trips and putting drivers onto bikes is one way, wider use of public transport is another.

Finally I should draw attention to a BBC television news report, I think yesterday evening, which stated as fact that London's mayor and the boroughs are working towards more walking and cycling in future. Personally I welcome that in terms of quality of life alone - cities world-wide are also doing it - but the population imperative is also there.

So David Hughes, Are you a centralist and reject the idea that local communities should have a degree of autonomy? Or is that just when (local) government's are implementing a policy you like, but which may be against the wishes of a local community, then you want the wishes of the local community to be ignored.

Perhaps Zac G could have a local referendum on Heathrow. That could perhaps get D Cameron out of no-if-no-but’s 3rd runway hole. After all it's of interest to the locals, who could then have a degree of autonomy. Wonder if he would have it funded by an anti-group or remain referendum-neutral?

Karl, it's not the same. Few people want to live next to an airport. But, airports need to be located somewhere. Besides, people who lose out because of a new airport or airport expansion will receive compensation. There is no need for a cycle superhighway along the A105. It is just a whim. And the Council is not going to compensate anyone who is disadvantaged by it.

Well how about a "referendum" on closing my street? Local, no need for through traffic (lots of other options if people choose to drive), no one needs to lose out (it would be open at one end). No aeroplanes involved. I've no doubt we locals would even pay for it. Is that the same?