Council plans to introduce new 20mph limits on host of roads
The Labour-run city council is bringing in the slower speed restriction in six roads, two years after it carried out a consultation on a much wider scheme.
An opposition councillor has accused the administration of ignoring city centre residents who wanted 20mph limits on the streets where they live.
The local authority's lead member for transport said the six roads had been selected for a 20mph zone after 'careful consideration', with no long-term decisions made on other routes.
Southampton City Council has issued a public notice confirming the change in speed limit for Albion Place, Albion Place Bus Hub, Bargate Street, Castle Way, Castle Way Service Road and East Park Terrace.
The move is due to come into operation on October 13, with proposals relating to other roads named in a 2023 traffic regulation order (TRO) not being progressed at this time.
A statement of reasons published as part of a consultation two years ago said the council had committed funding to implement 20mph limits in residential areas of the city where feasible and where there was community support.
Conservative group spokesman for transport Cllr Jeremy Moulton said: '20mph limits were originally envisaged for residential roads and there was considerable interest from city centre residents.
'Labour have ignored all of these people and are instead now only progressing 20mph limits on main roads and bus routes, in direct contradiction to the original aims of the policy.
'Labour always seem to ignore what local people want.'
Cllr Christie Lambert, cabinet member for transport, said: 'These roads have been selected after careful consideration and with a great deal of research undertaken.
'A 20mph limit will help to reduce the risk and severity of collisions and encourages more walking and cycling across the city. This will help people, especially children, older people, and people with mobility issues to cross the roads more safely.
'No long-term decisions have been made regarding other roads that were previously listed in TROs.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Diane Abbott advised Jeremy Corbyn against founding new party, event told
Diane Abbott advised Jeremy Corbyn against setting up a new political party, she said, over concerns it would struggle to get a foothold in Britain because of the voting system. Ms Abbott, who served as Mr Corbyn's shadow home secretary when he was Labour leader, said she had spoken to him before its launch, and said it was not a good idea. Speaking at an event at the Edinburgh Book Festival, the current longest-serving female MP said: 'There were people around Jeremy encouraging him to set up a new party, and I told him not to. 'It's very difficult under first-past-the-post system for a new party to absolutely win. If it wasn't first-past-the-post, then you can see how a new party could come through, but I understand why he did it.' Ms Abbott said she thought the party, formed by her long-time friend Independent MP Mr Corbyn (Islington North) alongside Independent MP Zarah Sultana (Coventry South), would outperform people's expectations. It was launched last month, but is still without a formal name. She said she believed it would take advantage of a broader discontent with politics in Britain. She paid tribute to Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana but said: 'At this point in time, it's difficult to see how a brand new party wins. 'However, I think Jeremy's party is going to do a lot better than people think because a lot of people who are not necessarily terribly left-wing people, are a tiny bit disappointed about the way we've gone in the past year.' The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington indicated her disappointment with the Labour Government. She had the whip withdrawn for the second time in two years in July, after she expressed a lack of regret about comments to the Observer in 2023 that suggested that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience prejudice, but not racism. However, she implied she would not join Mr Corbyn's party. Ms Abbott said: 'It's a tricky state of play. I wouldn't have thought that you'd have a Labour Government and they'd be cutting winter fuel allowance for the elderly and benefits for the disabled.' She was also critical of the Government's proscription of Palestine Action and labelled the decision 'a complete disgrace'. 'What they are seeking to do is proscribe protest as such,' she said. 'I mean, we all saw the pictures of the people in Trafalgar Square – 500 people? Half of them over 60. Come on, these are terrorists? I think this is an attempt to bear down on (protest).' She added her more than 40 years in Labour meant it was too late to leave it. She was elected to Parliament in 1987, and was the only black female MP in the Commons for a decade until Labour's landslide under Tony Blair. In response to a question about whether she thought she would ever be accepted 'at the heart' of the Labour Party, she replied: 'I think I am at the heart of the Labour Party, it's other people who aren't.' Ms Abbott, whose book A Woman Like Me, was the subject of the interview in the Scottish capital by campaigner Talat Yaqoob, also told the audience of her anger at not being called by Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the aftermath of racist comments by Conservative Party donor Frank Hester in 2024. She said she had stood during a Prime Minister's Question session more than 40 times to be called to speak, after Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and Sir Ed Davey had all spoken about the incident. Mr Hester was reported to have said Ms Abbott made him want to 'hate all black women' and that she 'should be shot'. The remarks brought widespread condemnation, including from Sir Keir, but she told the event her office was used to receiving racist abuse. 'I've been an MP for 38 years, and custom practice in the chamber is if you're being talked about, you get called. It's just a courtesy. I was so shocked that I wasn't called. 'But I heard later from someone who had reason to know, that what happened was that Rishi didn't want me called, because (Hester) was a Tory donor and it would look bad for them, and I'm afraid Keir Starmer didn't want me called because he wanted to milk the issue (for) political advantage, without mentioning me.' She said Sir Keir had approached her after the questions session and asked what he could do to help. 'I said, 'Yes, you can restore the whip'. And as if he hadn't heard, he said, 'Is there anything I can do for you?' It was like he was deaf. And I said, 'Yes, you can restore the whip', and he realised I wasn't going to play that game and he went off.'
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ranked-choice voting: Let voters (not parties) rule
In Annapolis, voters may soon get a bigger say in city elections. Members of the Annapolis City Council are considering adopting ranked-choice voting. It may sound new and complicated but it's actually quite simple and has been around since the 1850s, first originating in Denmark. Under ranked choice, voters have the chance to not only pick their top pick for office but to essentially rank their runners-up. How does this make a difference? Imagine a crowded primary race for mayor, for example, where no candidate is likely to win an outright majority of votes. Under the current system, that doesn't matter. The candidate who garners a plurality of votes still wins. But under ranked-choice voting, voters list their second, third, fourth and so on choices, too. And if there's no majority winner, these rankings are factored in — by eliminating the lowest polling candidate and redistributing that individual's second-choice votes and so on. That continues with bottom-listers dropping out until a candidate racks up a clear majority. What's the impact? Potentially profound. Suddenly, there's much less incentive to bad-mouth opponents or to follow party orthodoxy. Getting a shoutout from an opponent is actually helpful. Maryland doesn't have much experience with the system. Currently, Takoma Park is the only municipality where it's in use. But the state sure has a lot of experience with the downside of single voting: electing candidates with as little as 36.2% of the vote (the share Sarah K. Elfreth won in a crowded 22-person primary for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives vacated by U.S. Rep. John Sarbanes last year). Party loyalists aren't wild about ranked choice. They complain it's involved, it only helps the opposing party (whichever one that is) and can even leave the winner of a plurality in the dust if he or she doesn't fare well as a second or third choice in a crowded field. But given ranked choice is in use for statewide races in red-state Alaska as well as Takoma Park (AKA the 'People's Republic of Takoma Park' for its left-leaning politics), you have to wonder if fears of partisan disadvantage are overblown. The New York City mayor's race had ranked choice. It helped New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani win the primary, but he also had a plurality (43.5%), so it didn't change the outcome. What it did cause, observers say, was for Mamdani to 'cross-endorse' fellow progressive candidates. Such teamwork is uncommon but hardly undemocratic. New York didn't choose a socialist-leaning Democrat because of ranked-choice, but did it impact Mamdani's election strategy? Probably. Polls show it engaged his base and broadened participation. And that's somehow a bad thing? Peter Jensen is an editorial writer at The Baltimore Sun; he can be reached at pejensen@ Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Edinburgh TV festival: James Harding's MacTaggart lecture is a passionate defence of the BBC
The agenda-setting centrepiece of every Edinburgh TV Festival is the MacTaggart lecture, celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2025. This year's lecture was delivered by former BBC news director James Harding, and billed as a speech that would examine challenges to truth and trust in the media. Co-founder of Tortoise Media – the 'slow news' organisation that has recently bought The Observer – Harding has enjoyed a long career as a journalist and was also once editor of The Times newspaper. He isn't really a 'TV person', so Harding seems a strange choice to deliver the 50th MacTaggart. Why not someone who has TV running through their veins, like presenter and producer Richard Osman? Or someone who might reflect the MacTaggart's beginnings as part of a festival that sought to offer a Scottish-based perspective to the the London-centric TV industry? Or someone who could at least ask the most pressing question facing TV: does it have any kind of future? However, the organisers of the Edinburgh TV Festival promised the lecture would be 'a provocative, kick-ass and insightful view from a visionary leader'. However, as you might expect from someone who named their company after the humble tortoise, it was much gentler than that, poking its head out of its shell and gently tearing off some conversational topics rather than ripping into things. That said, the lecture was a passionate defence of the BBC that argued for a drastic increase in its funding. Harding started by describing the BBC as 'the most important source of information in this country and around the world'. It was time for the government to give real independence to the BBC in the same way it did with the Bank of England in 1997. He expressed concern that as things stand, the BBC chair is in essence appointed by the prime minister with a budget set by the chancellor. He also pointed out that should parliament choose not to renew the charter in 2027, the BBC would cease to exist. Harding argued for change that would see the BBC chair and board of directors appointed by the board itself (which does seem a somewhat circular process) and then approved by Ofcom. The charter, once renewed, would be open-ended (much like those for universities) and any funding – licence fee or otherwise – would be agreed by an independent panel that impartially advises government and is scrutinised by parliament. That funding, Harding said, needs to be doubled to allow the BBC to function properly. He cited the iPlayer and Media City in Salford as being bold, successful developments of the kind the BBC can only make when properly financed. He admitted that this rise in funding could not come from an increase in licence fee alone, and said something must be done about the 2.5 million households that currently don't pay it, underlining his support for the 'every household pays' model. Harding also suggested that the quasi-independent and still-developing work of BBC Studios, and in particular the monetising of the BBC archive, could be ways of increasing income for the corporation. He made an impassioned plea for the BBC World Service to be properly funded, pointing out that it already has a bigger worldwide audience than Netflix. It could, he said, reach over a billion people in the next decade, fighting misinformation globally and providing a real source of soft power for the UK. Harding's arguments as to what the BBC could be in the future are perhaps more daring and contentious. He imagines 'a BBC that thinks of itself more as the 'people's platform' as well as a public service broadcaster, one that's home to more varied thinking, but holds true to standards of truth and accuracy, diversity of opinion and fair treatment of people in the news'. It would, he said, be an open platform that 'would invite the BBC to think not just about how it informs and entertains, but how it educates too' – a kind of YouTube run by BBC editorial policy. This, he summed up, would be 'a national investment in our future that will come back to reap multi-platform rewards that an investment in no other UK organisation can'. I don't think there is much I would argue with in James Harding's MacTaggart lecture. I would just ask how all this is actually going to happen – how the debate moves out of the conference rooms of the TV festival. Harding obviously believes in the BBC. Yet when he was editor of The Times, a journalist of influence and power, he couldn't stop the paper's – and Rupert Murdoch's – relentless criticism of the BBC. We also now have an unofficial government opposition in Reform that believes, as Harding reminded the audience, that the BBC is out of touch and institutionally biased, and will be scrapped by Farage's party should they come to power. I agree with Harding that in a fragmented media world we must fight to preserve and properly fund the BBC. But that fight won't be easy. Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Paul Tucker is a member of The Royal Television Society and a voting member of BAFTA.
