British Politics

[Mr Blue Sky]

I must admit Wes, I've started reading your blog, and your knowledge and eloquence on a whole range of subjects makes me sad that you don't post those kind of in-depth views on here. I think you got scared off from posting your political views a while back when you realised you were the only Tony Blair fan on the board!

Hehe. If that was the case, I think I'd have retreated from the whole political discussion arena altogether, as finding a Labour supporter in Britain these days is a remarkably rare treat -- even more so down here in Somerset!

I suppose a part of me just thinks it's easier to stick to the media discussion here. I do discuss politics at other forums, but they tend to be far larger ones (Something Awful, Political Betting) where I don't have such attachment to the members. But, I dunno. Maybe next time a hot topic comes up here, I'll get in on the action!

My problem is I'm not here often enough these days to discuss in depth the current news story of the day. A year ago I'd have been all over the political implications of today's interest rate cut but alas I'm no longer given free reign at work to spend all day posting away on this site, mores the pity!

Knowing you're 'up for it' though, I'll start a thread the next time something comes up that I can devote a lot of attention to. At the moment just M-C and I tend to discuss such issues and as we agree most of the time there's no point simply re-enforcing each other's POVs.

Just a quick one though. Your boy Brown - a few months ago I'd have said he was dead and buried with Labour losing bi-elections like there was no tomorrow and Cameron's Tories holding a 20 point lead. Thanks to the world financial meltdown he's actually looked a lot more in control lately, and his PMQ performances have been much more assured. Do you think there's a chance he could actually pull off one of the most incredible political comebacks of modern times and win the next election? Discuss!!

[Hans the German Butler]

I hope not!

Not that I see a credible alternative but he's a dithering fool who killed diversification in our economy, sold off all of the government estates in the civil service when the value was at rock bottom because it looked neater on balance sheets (cost about £3 billion) and spent all of the surpluses generated by a booming world economy leaving us to borrow like there's no tomorrow when the inevitable crash came for want of some regulation of the stock market.

He claimed credit for the international bank bail-out plan - and the world seemed to believe him. The plan was Swedish, plagiarised by Darling and stolen by opportunist Brown. Claims to be a magician when confidence is high and blames everyone but himself when it all goes to hell.

I hope the dour-faced, personality-less lump just goes back to Fife and lives in a cave.

[Wezzo]

Just a quick one though. Your boy Brown - a few months ago I'd have said he was dead and buried with Labour losing bi-elections like there was no tomorrow and Cameron's Tories holding a 20 point lead. Thanks to the world financial meltdown he's actually looked a lot more in control lately, and his PMQ performances have been much more assured. Do you think there's a chance he could actually pull off one of the most incredible political comebacks of modern times and win the next election? Discuss!!

Ooh, discussion time.

Short answer: no. Long answer: no, but with some caveats.

I've never completely written Gordon Brown off, as many had. The electoral maths mean even with a 3-4% deficit, Labour can manage a majority in the Commons (that's based on a nationwide swing of course -- other polls suggest Labour are doing slightly worse in marginals, but not by much). And with a 7-8% deficit, a hung parliament is still likely. It's also worth noting that in the past, the Government have tended to do better closer to elections than in mid-term years.

But I think the media are overselling the Gordo comeback, and I think it's close to impossible that he'll pull the next election out of the bag now. Even with genuinely positive media coverage from almost every outlet, he still has a 6-12 point deficit. Plus, with Obama in, the "call for change" will undoubtedly contradict Brown's "no time for a novice" argument.

PMQs have been relatively good for him lately, but as I say, media coverage in general has been positive, and that's not having a huge effect. It's unlikely to get any better for him either. So while a 20 percent deficit for him will never be reflected in any genuine election -- that's Tory dreamland -- I think we're looking at a Conservative majority of ca. 20 next election. Maybe a hung Parliament with the Conservatives just short of a majority. I'll be happy to eat my words in May 2010 though

[Mr Blue Sky]

Decided to split this to its own topic.

[Wezzo]

Decided to split this to its own topic.

Good call, cheers

[Mr Blue Sky]

Not that I see a credible alternative but he's a dithering fool who killed diversification in our economy, sold off all of the government estates in the civil service when the value was at rock bottom because it looked neater on balance sheets (cost about £3 billion)

Yeah, my dad works for the civil service and was telling me about this. Short-termism of the most irresponsible kind.

...and spent all of the surpluses generated by a booming world economy leaving us to borrow like there's no tomorrow when the inevitable crash came for want of some regulation of the stock market.

You see, I'm in a bit of a quandary there because there are at least two new schools being built near where I live right now and I do think a good injection of public investment is what's needed when the country can afford it. The problem I've got is billions being wasted on things like an ID card scheme, and even the £250 savings scheme which my kids have benefited from I think is indicative of a government in 'spend, spend, spend' mode. Luxuries we plainly couldn't afford. I'm trying to find the source for this but an independent report came out today or yesterday which said this country will go through a deeper, longer recession than any of our European neighbours. Brown used to be nicknamed 'Prudence' thanks to his over-use of the word at budget time during Labour's excellent first term at the end of the 90s. It's safe to say that reputation's been shot to bits over the last couple of years.

He claimed credit for the international bank bail-out plan - and the world seemed to believe him. The plan was Swedish, plagiarised by Darling and stolen by opportunist Brown. Claims to be a magician when confidence is high and blames everyone but himself when it all goes to hell.

I didn't realise it was a Swedish plan! He certainly did garner all the international praise for that.

I hope the dour-faced, personality-less lump just goes back to Fife and lives in a cave.

Obama, he ain't.

[Wezzo]

SNP concede in Glenrothes

[Mr Blue Sky]

Short answer: no. Long answer: no, but with some caveats.

I've never completely written Gordon Brown off, as many had. The electoral maths mean even with a 3-4% deficit, Labour can manage a majority in the Commons (that's based on a nationwide swing of course -- other polls suggest Labour are doing slightly worse in marginals, but not by much). And with a 7-8% deficit, a hung parliament is still likely. It's also worth noting that in the past, the Government have tended to do better closer to elections than in mid-term years.

I see you becoming the British Josh Lyman in a few years, Wes.

I agree governments tend to become more popular as elections approach but I'd argue the reason for that is because they almost always bring out tax sweeteners in some form or other. Labour's record shows they have always raised taxes in the first budget after an election, but never directly before. In some ways it's a shame governments have to stand for re-election every 5 years, we may get more long term solutions if they didn't have to pander to the electorate halfway through an economic cycle!

But I think the media are overselling the Gordo comeback, and I think it's close to impossible that he'll pull the next election out of the bag now. Even with genuinely positive media coverage from almost every outlet, he still has a 6-12 point deficit. Plus, with Obama in, the "call for change" will undoubtedly contradict Brown's "no time for a novice" argument.

I think you're right. The 'time for a change' argument will eventually bring GB crashing down, especially if the projections about the economy hold firm (and I can't see those changing).

PMQs have been relatively good for him lately, but as I say, media coverage in general has been positive, and that's not having a huge effect. It's unlikely to get any better for him either. So while a 20 percent deficit for him will never be reflected in any genuine election -- that's Tory dreamland -- I think we're looking at a Conservative majority of ca. 20 next election. Maybe a hung Parliament with the Conservatives just short of a majority. I'll be happy to eat my words in May 2010 though

I think the Tories will be quite upset if they only end up with a HOC majority of 20. I think they had a majority of 17 or something when the won their 4th consecutive term under John Major in 1992, and that small margin led to an almost unbearable 5 years of in-fighting which split the party in two. I'm expecting GB's popularity to wane over the next 18 months as more people get made redundant (something I'm personally worried about, truth be told) and unemployment rises to the 2.5m mark. I'm afraid a 1979 style 'Winter of Discontent' may be on the horizon in 2010 and the Tories could end up with a landslide. Of course I'll be happy for their majority to be lower and the economy recover in the meantime, obviously.

Just one other point. I think Osborne is a liability for the Tories right now, and not just because of what's happened recently with the Russian billionaire and Peter Mandelson. Cameron will never do it, but I'd love to see Ken Clarke given his old job back...

[Mr Blue Sky]

SNP concede in Glenrothes

Cheers for that. Well, their majority was slashed in half but after recent bi-election defeats they must be delighted to have held on to this seat. No doubt inspired by GB's personal resurgence in popularity, however temporary that may be.

[Wezzo]

I've never completely written Gordon Brown off, as many had. The electoral maths mean even with a 3-4% deficit, Labour can manage a majority in the Commons (that's based on a nationwide swing of course -- other polls suggest Labour are doing slightly worse in marginals, but not by much). And with a 7-8% deficit, a hung parliament is still likely. It's also worth noting that in the past, the Government have tended to do better closer to elections than in mid-term years.

I see you becoming the British Josh Lyman in a few years, Wes. [/quote]

Sounds good to me!

I agree governments tend to become more popular as elections approach but I'd argue the reason for that is because they almost always bring out tax sweeteners in some form or other. Labour's record shows they have always raised taxes in the first budget after an election, but never directly before. In some ways it's a shame governments have to stand for re-election every 5 years, we may get more long term solutions if they didn't have to pander to the electorate halfway through an economic cycle!

Hehe, indeed. You're probably right about the reasons governments get more popular at election time - but there's no reason it won't be different this time. I imagine Labour's deficit will decrease by about half of the gap, whatever that gap is, between May 2009 and May 2010.

I think you're right. The 'time for a change' argument will eventually bring GB crashing down, especially if the projections about the economy hold firm (and I can't see those changing).

Indeed, it's pretty much doom and gloom in the short-to-mid term. The IMF certainly aren't optimistic, saying we're worst-placed to weather the crisis (and on a personal note falling GBP = goodbye cheap DVD imports = )

I think the Tories will be quite upset if they only end up with a HOC majority of 20. I think they had a majority of 17 or something when the won their 4th consecutive term under John Major in 1992, and that small margin led to an almost unbearable 5 years of in-fighting which split the party in two.

Indeed. But it wouldn't surprise me if that happened again in 2010. (well, it would, but not a huge amount). It's a similar scenario: Labour were well ahead in the polls in '92, but the governing party pulled it out of the bag -- marginally -- at the last minute. Polling methodologies have apparently improved since then, though, so who knows?

I'm expecting GB's popularity to wane over the next 18 months as more people get made redundant (something I'm personally worried about, truth be told) and unemployment rises to the 2.5m mark. I'm afraid a 1979 style 'Winter of Discontent' may be on the horizon in 2010 and the Tories could end up with a landslide. Of course I'll be happy for their majority to be lower and the economy recover in the meantime, obviously.

I think Labour's support may slump but not a huge amount. I think 25% is their core vote and I can't envisage it dropping below that in a GE. Mass redundancies could change that, though, I agree.. but I think a '79-style, or indeed '97-style, landslide is off the cards. They'd have to be so, so far behind in the polls.

Just one other point. I think Osborne is a liability for the Tories right now, and not just because of what's happened recently with the Russian billionaire and Peter Mandelson. Cameron will never do it, but I'd love to see Ken Clarke given his old job back...

I cannot stand Osborne, possibly my least favourite British politician. Ken Clarke would be a brilliant choice, I think he'd make a solid chancellor and I like him.. but yeah, never gonna happen.

[Wezzo]

Pretty big majority for Labour in Glenrothes - 6,700 majority. I'm impressed.

[Mr Blue Sky]

Hehe, indeed. You're probably right about the reasons governments get more popular at election time - but there's no reason it won't be different this time. I imagine Labour's deficit will decrease by about half of the gap, whatever that gap is, between May 2009 and May 2010.

The gap could be quite a bit by then, but you're probably right.

Indeed, it's pretty much doom and gloom in the short-to-mid term. The IMF certainly aren't optimistic, saying we're worst-placed to weather the crisis (and on a personal note falling GBP = goodbye cheap DVD imports = )

Yes, I believe the IMF quoted your lack of DVD purchasing as an indicator of how deep we've sunk into recession...

Indeed. But it wouldn't surprise me if that happened again in 2010. (well, it would, but not a huge amount). It's a similar scenario: Labour were well ahead in the polls in '92, but the governing party pulled it out of the bag -- marginally -- at the last minute. Polling methodologies have apparently improved since then, though, so who knows?

Hehe, I remember 'Red Wednesday' very well when Labour were shown to be ahead in every major poll going into the '92 elections. Then we had Kinnock's "Well Aaaaaalriiiight!!!" speech in Sheffield and Labour support ran for cover!

I think Labour's support may slump but not a huge amount. I think 25% is their core vote and I can't envisage it dropping below that in a GE. Mass redundancies could change that, though, I agree.. but I think a '79-style, or indeed '97-style, landslide is off the cards. They'd have to be so, so far behind in the polls.

It's hard to think Labour will ever get less than 25%. There are too many people who vote Labour because their parents did, and their parents before them. Too many people judge these things like they're supporting a football team IMHO. I've voted for all 3 of the major parties over the years.

I cannot stand Osborne, possibly my least favourite British politician. Ken Clarke would be a brilliant choice, I think he'd make a solid chancellor and I like him.. but yeah, never gonna happen.

It's a shame. I think Labour will pinpoint Osborne come election time. He's the weak link. All those 'lack of substance' slurs don't stick to Cameron IMO. But Osborne on the other hand...

[Moon-Crane]

It's hard to think Labour will ever get less than 25%. There are too many people who vote Labour because their parents did, and their parents before them. Too many people judge these things like they're supporting a football team IMHO. I've voted for all 3 of the major parties over the years.

I think that works both ways. The media perpetuates a two-party choice, too, displaying the Lib Dems as a bumbling joke, even on occasions when their policies seem sound in comparison to some wishywashy Labour/Conservatives posturing. They're not exactly appealing to me at the moment, however.

I've also voted for all three at various times. Maybe rather surprisingly, my parents rarely voted the same as each other.

I have to admit i'm more interested in local council elections than any government election at the moment, as i don't think there'll be much difference between Lab/Con govt, while we're almost at the point of irreparable damage to the local road network through short-sightedness and faux-Green policy.

[Dorset Girl]

I have to admit i'm more interested in local council elections than any government election at the moment, as i don't think there'll be much difference between Lab/Con govt, while we're almost at the point of irreparable damage to the local road network through short-sightedness and faux-Green policy.

When I lived in Swansea, I was very 'hands-on' involved in local politics. I used to campaign for the Lib Dems, and as the votes were being counted I used to accompany our candidate at the Guildhall (all bloody night sometimes!), watch the counting and try to assess how well they were doing. A pointless task really, but quite fun.

I gave up support for the Lib Dems though, after the IMHO shocking way in which Charles Kennedy was treated. Ousting him in the way that they did caused a huge amount of damage to them nationally. It felt like they were closer than they'd ever been in my memory to being a viable alternative to the Conservatives as the Opposition... not now though.

Since we've moved back to Dorset, I'm much more undecided about my allegiances. In local elections I vote for whichever candidate has the best policies - irrespective of what party they belong to. It's always a Tory that wins in my area, though - by a significant majority.

[Wezzo]

I gave up support for the Lib Dems though, after the IMHO shocking way in which Charles Kennedy was treated. Ousting him in the way that they did caused a huge amount of damage to them nationally. It felt like they were closer than they'd ever been in my memory to being a viable alternative to the Conservatives as the Opposition... not now though.

They treated him appallingly. They deserve the electoral failure Campbell and, now, Clegg will undoubtedly bring them. That'll teach 'em..

Yes, I believe the IMF quoted your lack of DVD purchasing as an indicator of how deep we've sunk into recession...

Sarcasm that may be, but it comprises a significant percentage of the total British economy

It's hard to think Labour will ever get less than 25%. There are too many people who vote Labour because their parents did, and their parents before them. Too many people judge these things like they're supporting a football team IMHO. I've voted for all 3 of the major parties over the years.

I think the "parents" thing applies to the Conservatives too, though. There are bound to be middle-class families up and down Britain where the thought of voting Labour provokes both laughter and/or disgust..

I'd probably consider voting for parties other than Labour. Depends on policies.

It's a shame. I think Labour will pinpoint Osborne come election time. He's the weak link. All those 'lack of substance' slurs don't stick to Cameron IMO. But Osborne on the other hand...

Yep, I think Cameron will regret it if he keeps Osborne up top.

[Hans the German Butler]

Yeah, my dad works for the civil service and was telling me about this. Short-termism of the most irresponsible kind.

Not to mention selling a fair proportion of the gold reserves in exchange for Euros!

You see, I'm in a bit of a quandary there because there are at least two new schools being built near where I live right now and I do think a good injection of public investment is what's needed when the country can afford it. The problem I've got is billions being wasted on things like an ID card scheme, and even the £250 savings scheme which my kids have benefited from I think is indicative of a government in 'spend, spend, spend' mode. Luxuries we plainly couldn't afford. I'm trying to find the source for this but an independent report came out today or yesterday which said this country will go through a deeper, longer recession than any of our European neighbours. Brown used to be nicknamed 'Prudence' thanks to his over-use of the word at budget time during Labour's excellent first term at the end of the 90s. It's safe to say that reputation's been shot to bits over the last couple of years.

I suppose my natural inclination here is to say they were correcting years of underinvestment by the previous administrations. I support school building and investment in schools and universities - that's where tomorrow's economic growth comes from. The issues I have are more with the NHS - capital expenditure was relatively small because of PFI so the increase in expenditure from £68 billion per year to £110 billion within 5 years of taking office went mostly on more staff and increased wages. I think Nurses are underpaid - they still are - but increases need to be sustainable and balanced with other needs. Everyone's bleating about the banks taking public money but it needing to have strings attached (I agree they should be forced to pass on the rate cuts), but the strings for the NHS only really started to kick in after the money was spent and it was too late to use it as leverage - and we're talking £5 billion more than the banks got!

I didn't realise it was a Swedish plan! He certainly did garner all the international praise for that.

The Swedish government effectively nationalised all their banks in 2004 when they needed recapitalisation. It worked in their case because the banks were able to buy their shares back incrementally and Swedish taxpayers got their money back. The only difference was that the Swedes could have afforded to have lost the money because they had budget surpluses.

Obama, he ain't.

Apparently, neither is Silvio Berlusconi - although he does have a good tan!

[Moon-Crane]

I have to admit i'm more interested in local council elections than any government election at the moment, as i don't think there'll be much difference between Lab/Con govt, while we're almost at the point of irreparable damage to the local road network through short-sightedness and faux-Green policy.

When I lived in Swansea, I was very 'hands-on' involved in local politics. I used to campaign for the Lib Dems, and as the votes were being counted I used to accompany our candidate at the Guildhall (all bloody night sometimes!), watch the counting and try to assess how well they were doing. A pointless task really, but quite fun.

I gave up support for the Lib Dems though, after the IMHO shocking way in which Charles Kennedy was treated. Ousting him in the way that they did caused a huge amount of damage to them nationally. It felt like they were closer than they'd ever been in my memory to being a viable alternative to the Conservatives as the Opposition... not now though.

Since we've moved back to Dorset, I'm much more undecided about my allegiances. In local elections I vote for whichever candidate has the best policies - irrespective of what party they belong to. It's always a Tory that wins in my area, though - by a significant majority.

Our council is under minority administration from the LD, but their lead councillor is on the board of a quango that threatens to completely destroy our road network. They've already started to ruin the flow through the city centre area and it's set to spread. If she can't be ousted then i'm afraid i hope she dies before being able to force any more disastrous policy through - sound harsh? - that's how bad it is.

The Conservatives are publicly voicing opposition to some ridiculous, illogical, anti-car moves, so it looks like they lead the race for my local vote at the moment.

[Dorset Girl]

Our council is under minority administration from the LD, but their lead councillor is on the board of a quango that threatens to completely destroy our road network. They've already started to ruin the flow through the city centre area and it's set to spread. If she can't be ousted then i'm afraid i hope she dies before being able to force any more disastrous policy through - sound harsh? - that's how bad it is.

The Conservatives are publicly voicing opposition to some ridiculous, illogical, anti-car moves, so it looks like they lead the race for my local vote at the moment.

So what are they planning to do? It's all quite logically laid out at the moment, from what I remember? Are they going to rephase the traffic lights or something - I could see that causing absolute chaos!

EDIT: Oh, hang on... don't tell me you're having lanes for 'bendy buses'? Just ask anyone in Swansea about the chaos that can cause.

[Moon-Crane]

Our council is under minority administration from the LD, but their lead councillor is on the board of a quango that threatens to completely destroy our road network. They've already started to ruin the flow through the city centre area and it's set to spread. If she can't be ousted then i'm afraid i hope she dies before being able to force any more disastrous policy through - sound harsh? - that's how bad it is.

The Conservatives are publicly voicing opposition to some ridiculous, illogical, anti-car moves, so it looks like they lead the race for my local vote at the moment.

So what are they planning to do? It's all quite logically laid out at the moment, from what I remember? Are they going to rephase the traffic lights or something - I could see that causing absolute chaos!

EDIT: Oh, hang on... don't tell me you're having lanes for 'bendy buses'? Just ask anyone in Swansea about the chaos that can cause.

They're looking at breaking the whole grid system. Adding extra traffic lights; chopping down all the trees and greenery that surround and hide estates from the road and building right up the edge; adding pedestrian crossings to grid roads even though people have the redways, underpasses and bridges to cross over these roads; building on and generally reducing all the designated parking areas in the centre; not continuing the grid system, including the redways for walking and cycling into new estates; building across the 'grid' so that it coudln't even be reintroduced in the future without major headaches. - it's a joke, if it wasn't so serious.

You just need to see the location and infrastructure around the newly built Sainsbury's, in our city centre, to see how utterly retarded these people are.

The town has always been the butt of jokes, but the design, especially the road network works amazingly well - especially in comparison to any other highly populated town/city i've ever been to in the UK. It's going to be crippled by forced 'improvements' by a fuckwit quango.

[Dorset Girl]

They're looking at breaking the whole grid system. Adding extra traffic lights; chopping down all the trees and greenery that surround and hide estates from the road and building right up the edge; adding pedestrian crossings to grid roads even though people have the redways, underpasses and bridges to cross over these roads; building on and generally reducing all the designated parking areas in the centre; not continuing the grid system, including the redways for walking and cycling into new estates; building across the 'grid' so that it coudln't even be reintroduced in the future without major headaches. - it's a joke, if it wasn't so serious.

You just need to see the location and infrastructure around the newly built Sainsbury's, in our city centre, to see how utterly retarded these people are.

The town has always been the butt of jokes, but the design, especially the road network works amazingly well - especially in comparison to any other highly populated town/city i've ever been to in the UK. It's going to be crippled by forced 'improvements' by a fuckwit quango.

Nightmare! Send them a copy of Sim City, anyone who's played any incarnation of that game knows that grid systems always work best!

Seriously, that does sound utterly ridiculous. Have they not heard the saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it?' As for taking away greenery - shouldn't they be looking at adding more, if anything? Is the pressure for new builds so great that they have to do it this way? And they'd better not be doing away with the Cows. I like them. One has a geocache taped to its udder.

[Moon-Crane]

They're looking at breaking the whole grid system. Adding extra traffic lights; chopping down all the trees and greenery that surround and hide estates from the road and building right up the edge; adding pedestrian crossings to grid roads even though people have the redways, underpasses and bridges to cross over these roads; building on and generally reducing all the designated parking areas in the centre; not continuing the grid system, including the redways for walking and cycling into new estates; building across the 'grid' so that it coudln't even be reintroduced in the future without major headaches. - it's a joke, if it wasn't so serious.

You just need to see the location and infrastructure around the newly built Sainsbury's, in our city centre, to see how utterly retarded these people are.

The town has always been the butt of jokes, but the design, especially the road network works amazingly well - especially in comparison to any other highly populated town/city i've ever been to in the UK. It's going to be crippled by forced 'improvements' by a fuckwit quango.

Nightmare! Send them a copy of Sim City, anyone who's played any incarnation of that game knows that grid systems always work best!

Seriously, that does sound utterly ridiculous. Have they not heard the saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it?' As for taking away greenery - shouldn't they be looking at adding more, if anything? Is the pressure for new builds so great that they have to do it this way? And they'd better not be doing away with the Cows. I like them. One has a geocache taped to its udder.

They don't need to do it this way, there's lots of development space in the region. However, they want to make the place less car reliant - which, in their view, means a high-density approach, filling up the wide open, spaced out, central areas with many high-rise buildings.

You hit the nail on the head by saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. That's the argument of the majority who live here. The system has worked since the town was built. Unfortunately they're 'fixing' bits and pieces, adding traffic lights to places that don't require them instead of the roundabouts, causing the traffic to back up, and changing road markings to layouts that seriously beggar belief. It's as if they're determined to increase the accidents through people not being able to understand which fucking lane they're supposed to be in at a growing number of junctions. There's no logic used, or consistency.

The argument used is that they're aiming to reduce pollution Spurious at best, as the air in Milton Keynes was tested to be higher quality than other towns/cities of similar population. The argument also fails, in my view, because alternative powered vehicles are being developed at a pretty fast rate. It's not going to be too long before zero emission cars are commonplace - reliable and affordable for the masses. Where's the argument for getting rid of cars on pollution grounds then? It's all short-sightedness and downright lies.

The thing is, the redway system which runs across the whole town at the moment is probably the safest and most reliable off-road network in the country - far superior to the so called models of cycling networks in the cities of Oxford and Cambridge. Cyclist, and pedestrians, don't ever need to come into contact with a car/bus/lorry, etc, at any point whatsoever. It's only people's laziness that sees them trying to cross national speed limit roads, rather than using the bridges and underpasses. Yet, the council and this 'English Partnerships' quango want to cater to these idiots by adding road crossings, again slowing down/stopping a perfectly flowing traffic system for no reason. Instead, I'd be making it a jaywalking offence, punishable by death Not that i'm angry about it or anything

[Dorset Girl]

So yet another ill thought-out scheme to reduce car use then?

I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps, as you say MC, technology will provide the answer to less pollution, hopefully in the near future.

The other option that's often discussed is encouraging people to use public transport, but there are several problems with that. The first is the cost - for a person travelling alone, it may be cheaper to use a bus or train, but if there are two people making a journey, the cost is immediately doubled and the chances are that a car journey would be cheaper. Another problem is the convenience - even cities with a good bus network are not going to be able to regularly cover every route, which means that journey times are longer. Either buses take ridiculously intricate routes through housing estates, making what would be a 20 minute car ride into an hour bus ride, or people have to change buses and time their journeys accordingly.

The third problem (and sorry if this offends anyone, but I imagine that some people who are reading this and can drive fall into this category) - some people simply won't use public transport! Even if there is a convenient, fast, cost-effective bus that they could use to commute, they will still take a car.



Not connected with public transport - but something that really bugs me is that some of my colleagues, who live only five minute's walk from campus, will get their car out every morning, become part of the regular traffic jam on the main road, struggle to find a parking space on campus, and take 15 or 20 minutes to get to work instead of getting off their backsides and walking. The excuses are numerous - too much to carry, it's my right to a parking place, it's cold, the park's not safe to walk through... okay, maybe sometimes they do have a lot to carry. On that occasion, they bring the car. Maybe some of them have mobility problems, so walking isn't an option. Other than that though, I have no sympathy when they whinge about paying for a parking permit. Lazy fuckers. I walk in. I have a laptop and books to carry, I'm very overweight and unfit, and I have a bad ankle. If I can do it, they can do it.

There! You get worked up about jaywalking MC, I get worked up about lazy people.

[Moon-Crane]

I'm with you on that DG. That laziness aggravates me. I'll walk when i can. I used to walk into the town all the time when i stayed at my fiancee's parents - it was only a mile or two - about 20 minute walk. We live about 5 or 6 miles out of the centre now so it's not so practical. The road system gets us there and parked up in 5-10 minutes.

You wouldn't believe the amount of people that prefer to circle the closest pay parking areas to the shopping centre, waiting and fighting for parking spaces, rather than park in the empty free spaces a block or two away.

Have we hijacked this thread away from politics? Sorry.

[Dorset Girl]

Have we hijacked this thread away from politics? Sorry.

Nah, it's still politics. When I'm Prime Minister, I'm going to pass a law that says all able-bodied people have to walk at least five miles per week.

[Wezzo]

Have we hijacked this thread away from politics? Sorry.

Nah, it's still politics. When I'm Prime Minister, I'm going to pass a law that says all able-bodied people have to walk at least five miles per week.

Jeez, lady. Remind me not to vote for you?

But I guess I'll be alright if walking from the PC to the fridge counts..