The Politics Thread 2019

[maxjam]

I'm really not meaning to troll with this link, but its trending atm and some of you will find it funny. 

If there is a similar one for other papers/parties post them for balance and laughs, its waaaay to despressing to take anything seriously anymore ?

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TrollingTheGuardian&src=trend_click

[jono]

11 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

The time of day that the journey takes place, should have no bearing on the cost.

Why not

[1of4]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If I move closer to my work, my girlfriend will then be further away from her’s (same distance to get to the nearest train station).

Car share - I already take my girlfriend to the train station 2 days a week. But I can’t share with anyone else due to the only other person living close enough / on the way starts work at least an hour after me. 

Isn’t really safe to cycle on these roads for the same reasons pointed out by @86 Schmokes & a Pancake. 

Other reasons why I need a car:
- I take my gf to work on Sundays. 26 miles away when no trains are running.
- I regularly visit my parents 19 miles away, but it would take 13 hours to get there by public transport. 
- Going to watch Derby. 40 minutes by car vs 2+ hours by public transport (not possible midweek due time of finishing work, but possible on Saturday’s)

Have you thought about walking there?  I'm sure you could cut the journey time in half when compared to public transport.

[1of4]

8 minutes ago, jono said:

Why not

Why should someone be charged more than someone else just because they need to at the same place but at a different time?

For example if you start work at 8am and your colleague started at 10am. Would you be happy if he was charged less than you but he travelled further.

[1of4]

28 minutes ago, Van Gritters said:

Surely you would want to encourage people to travel off peak rather than have two full trains a day.

Surely the whole idea is to encourage more people to use public transport and that it's available to them at times that they most need it.

Why penalise people who have to travel at fixed times, while those who luckily, can be more flexible with their travel arrangements are rewarded.

[jono]

16 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Why should someone be charged more than someone else just because they need to at the same place but at a different time?

For example if you start work at 8am and your colleague started at 10am. Would you be happy if he was charged less than you but he travelled further.

Because there is more demand and the price reflects that. That inconvenient demand / cost might then fall As employers have to have more flexible working hours to reduce cost which I turn would create more space on busy trains and previously sparsely used trains would be better utilised. In other words encourage balanced useage. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

53 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm really not meaning to troll with this link, but its trending atm and some of you will find it funny. 

If there is a similar one for other papers/parties post them for balance and laughs, its waaaay to despressing to take anything seriously anymore ?

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TrollingTheGuardian&src=trend_click

That was amusing in fairness ?

[jono]

This thread is fascinating.

as soon as a conversation moves away from “I’m right” or  “I have better mud to sling at your guy than you have at mine” 

then discourse tends to fizzle out. It seems we all like preaching to the choir. Hummm what price consensus politics  ? 
 

I think I am an alien 
 

 

[Rev]

1 hour ago, jono said:

I suppose I should laugh but I have an earnest streak in me. I just can’t do the yah boo stuff when allied to the likes of Saville, Cyril Smith or even Kieth Vaz. Politics cannot be an explanations excuse for being a nasty human being. 

Understandable.

I tend to laugh at things I don't really want to think about too deeply.

Defence mechanism, I suppose.

[Van der MoodHoover]

Back to more serious matters. I haven't followed in detail which politicians said what in reaction to the tragic deaths on London bridge, but the father of one of the victims has been lambasting Johnson and Patel - completely distancing his family from their remarks. Good on him.

And labour seems to have found some more extra cash with which to run railways so they don't have to bother with fares anymore it seems.....

 

[1of4]

30 minutes ago, jono said:

Because there is more demand and the price reflects that. That inconvenient demand / cost might then fall As employers have to have more flexible working hours to reduce cost which I turn would create more space on busy trains and previously sparsely used trains would be better utilised. In other words encourage balanced useage. 

You're still looking at trains as a profit making business.

The rail network along with with buses and trams  needs to be looked at as a fully integrated public transport system.

While it would be nice  if the system could be run at cost, I doubt that will ever happen. But surely the benefits gained from a good state run transport ,  Like less cars on the road, less wear and tear to the roads, how many billions are spent on repairing potholes.  Less accidents and the benefits that will bring, the savings to all the emergency services. Plus less air pollution, what price should be put on that. All this would override any loses incurred by a good transport networks.

[1of4]

57 minutes ago, jono said:

Because there is more demand and the price reflects that. That inconvenient demand / cost might then fall As employers have to have more flexible working hours to reduce cost which I turn would create more space on busy trains and previously sparsely used trains would be better utilised. In other words encourage balanced useage

 

[GboroRam]

24 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

You're still looking at trains as a profit making business.

The rail network along with with buses and trams  needs to be looked at as a fully integrated public transport system.

While it would be nice  if the system could be run at cost, I doubt that will ever happen. But surely the benefits gained from a good state run transport ,  Like less cars on the road, less wear and tear to the roads, how many billions are spent on repairing potholes.  Less accidents and the benefits that will bring, the savings to all the emergency services. Plus less air pollution, what price should be put on that. All this would override any loses incurred by a good transport networks.

Less cars on the road means we don't need to spend fortunes expanding the road network. That's the major saving. 

[Angry Ram]

8 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Back to more serious matters. I haven't followed in detail which politicians said what in reaction to the tragic deaths on London bridge, but the father of one of the victims has been lambasting Johnson and Patel - completely distancing his family from their remarks. Good on him.

And labour seems to have found some more extra cash with which to run railways so they don't have to bother with fares anymore it seems.....

 

It’s a difficult one re the father.. His son had a specific point of view, which is fine but should his death be used to stifle the conversation? It’s right he should be able to say that but a tragic death(s), cannot determine how we go forward. It’s an important Debra on how we deal with these issues but maybe now is too soon.

 

Both parties seem to have a money pit now.. 

[Angry Ram]

28 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

It’s a difficult one re the father.. His son had a specific point of view, which is fine but should his death be used to stifle the conversation? It’s right he should be able to say that but a tragic death(s), cannot determine how we go forward. It’s an important Debra on how we deal with these issues but maybe now is too soon.

 

Both parties seem to have a money pit now.. 

Debate ffs.. Poxy phone.

[RamNut]

Summary.

i’d rather hack off my genitals than vote Conservative. 

I would prefer to stop Brexit and therefore find the Labour party’s flip flopping to be undeserving of a vote.

Liberal-democrats -  I can’t quite forgive them for their Tory support last time around.

the Greens - environmental issues are things we should care about, perhaps they have a charismatic local candidate who can....oh ffs...

maybe SNP? 

 

[Sith Happens]

9 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Back to more serious matters. I haven't followed in detail which politicians said what in reaction to the tragic deaths on London bridge, but the father of one of the victims has been lambasting Johnson and Patel - completely distancing his family from their remarks. Good on him.

And labour seems to have found some more extra cash with which to run railways so they don't have to bother with fares anymore it seems.....

 

If it is what i have seen, the family hoping it doesn't lead to 'draconian measures' or terrorists being locked up for too long. Have to say they are better people than I am.

I don't know what the answer is but releasing early has clearly failed in this instance.

 

[Sith Happens]

1 hour ago, Angry Ram said:

It’s a difficult one re the father.. His son had a specific point of view, which is fine but should his death be used to stifle the conversation? It’s right he should be able to say that but a tragic death(s), cannot determine how we go forward. It’s an important Debra on how we deal with these issues but maybe now is too soon.

 

Both parties seem to have a money pit now.. 

I don't think it should stifle the conversation, i do think some of the mud flinging has been out of order, its evident there have been failings on both the conservatives/coalition and the last labour government in this.

What happens next needs to be positive, not a point scoring exercise as too many people seem happy to take part in.

[GboroRam]

13 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I would prefer to stop Brexit and therefore find the Labour party’s flip flopping to be undeserving of a vote.

That's where I find Labour's position quite satisfying in many ways. I don't think it's reasonable to just cancel it without evidence there's been a shift in public opinion (for what it's worth I think there's a good chance a second vote would be still to leave). If you don't want to basically ride roughshod over a lot of people's views, you have to have a basis for changing direction. A second referendum could still give everyone a chance to make an informed decision if the choice from 3 years ago still is the option we feel is best. 

[jono]

9 hours ago, 1of4 said:

You're still looking at trains as a profit making business.

The rail network along with with buses and trams  needs to be looked at as a fully integrated public transport system.

While it would be nice  if the system could be run at cost, I doubt that will ever happen. But surely the benefits gained from a good state run transport ,  Like less cars on the road, less wear and tear to the roads, how many billions are spent on repairing potholes.  Less accidents and the benefits that will bring, the savings to all the emergency services. Plus less air pollution, what price should be put on that. All this would override any loses incurred by a good transport networks.

If it is an integrated transport system then it’s usage needs to be optimised. I can see a state oversight for major projects and developments useful to the whole but I would rather battle with a private company that dodges and weaves than with a stony “that’s our policy citizen” state run organisation.