| Topic: | Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Paul James | |
| Date/Time: | 01/09/21 10:19:00 |
| >Paul, can you explain more why this wasn't a proper consultation but rather a 'self-selecting poll'? Er... >As far as I can see it was handled reasonably competently and delivered a result that was consistent with other measures of public opinion on the LTNs including Commonplace, petitions and emails to the council. You mean consistent with other self selecting polls? >The only way that it could be said to be self-selecting is that it was confined to people in or around the LTNs, It wasn't, but... > the ones that would be most likely to be supportive of the schemes if they were working as intended. And if the response was I'd agree. >To be frank I think you are calling into question the methodology of the consultation because you don't like the result. I was pointing out how silly it was BEFORE the result came out. >Unfortunately it is unlikely a different approach would give you a different result. That may be the case, but we don't know because a proper survey has not been done in ealing (apart from the mayoral elections which saw anti LTN candidates soundly rejected, but that's a complicated ask to analyse) >So on LTN21 you can offer no reason as an alternative to the generally accepted one of Swyncombe Avenue and adjacent traffic displacement but you think there is some dark reason behind it? "generally accepted"... you mean pushed by anti LTN people... >If you pause to reflect for a moment you'll recall that Andrew Gilligan appears to have used the early termination of LTN21 as the pretext for withdrawing Ealing's funding so whatever scheme you think Peter Mason may have been planning, it appears to have backfired badly. Not really! The council will have known this was going to happen. |