Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Wymsey

Also in the News - Part 2

By Wymsey, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

The Tories have little to lose in Scotland, as they only have 6 Scottish MPs. Similarly, they only have 14 MPs in Wales. If they are to be "annihilated", that will have to happen in England.

 

But if the SNP lose a lot of seats, based on current polls it would greatly increase Labour's chances of winning an overall majority, rather than simply being the biggest party at Westminster.

Bizarrely, an SNP collapse at the general election could hand a small number of SNP/Tory marginals to the Tories - but it's Labour that would mainly benefit from such a collapse, and the Tories might lose some/all of their 6 existing seats.

 

I have mixed feelings about the idea of the Tories being annihilated UK-wide. On a visceral level, I'd love it - particularly given what the Tory party has become in recent years (a weird blend of polarising bigotry, populism, free-market extremism, apparent corruption and incompetence).

 

But what about the longer-term? If Labour win but don't embrace electoral reform, even if they govern well they'll face an uphill challenge to win again in 2029 due to the state of the nation. We need a competent, decent opposition and  alternative govt if so. And I'm not sure that the Tories are going to provide that.

 

Most of their moderate, competent centre-right types have left or been booted out and the party membership and parliamentary party seem to be in the hands of laissez-faire ideologues and/or anti-truth populists. Labour faced some justified criticism for going too far left under Corbyn, but he never really had full control of party and parliament. Whereas the UKIPist ideological takeover of the Tories has gone much deeper - the majority of party membership supports this rightward shift, along with a sizeable proportion of the parliamentary party. If the Tories lose the election, maybe there'll be some sort of Tory split or realignment - or a full populist right takeover of the party? But, unlike with Labour, it's hard to see that there's any moderate Tory party left to bounce back.

 

Where does that leave us after a few more years of difficult times? A choice between a perhaps unpopular centre-left/social-democratic Labour and a seriously nasty, divisive, Trumpian Tory party? :dunno:  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If this is all so supposedly unachievable, then why does public transport in other comparable nations to the UK have a much bigger slice of the pie? They have shown it is in fact possible to have a network that serves at least a decent slice of the population.

Which comparable nation do you have in mind, whose public transport is so good that it "incentivises everyone to ditch private transport"?  I'm not doubting it, just that I was under the impression that rich nations generally had high car ownership, and if one or more of them do not have high ownership then we could certainly learn from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Which comparable nation do you have in mind, whose public transport is so good that it "incentivises everyone to ditch private transport"?  I'm not doubting it, just that I was under the impression that rich nations generally had high car ownership, and if one or more of them do not have high ownership then we could certainly learn from them.

I beg your pardon, I was under the impression that you thought the UK could not improve in this regard at all, rather than a much more "perfect" solution where a very large proportion of the population opt for public transport.

 

Of course, the latter has no examples, but I would say that (South) Korea is a fine example of public transportation being used widely, successfully, and taking a lot of the burden off of private transportation, even though there are still a great many people there who do use cars. It is also comparable to the UK in terms of land area, population and (to a degree) population distribution.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fox_up_north

fox_up_north

Posted
Posted

Perhaps it's not about completely getting rid of cars but if we could reduce car use by even 25%, surely that's a target to aim for?

 

I'm not the biggest fan of driving and have a real aversion to traffic. I'd much prefer to be on a train than in a car, in those circumstances. 

 

I find it incredibly frustrating that the last 8 times I've actually wanted to use the train, I've only been able to twice - due to strikes or cancellations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nnfox

nnfox

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Perhaps it's not about completely getting rid of cars but if we could reduce car use by even 25%, surely that's a target to aim for?

 

I'm not the biggest fan of driving and have a real aversion to traffic. I'd much prefer to be on a train than in a car, in those circumstances. 

 

I find it incredibly frustrating that the last 8 times I've actually wanted to use the train, I've only been able to twice - due to strikes or cancellations.

Some sort of scheme like they have with those bloody scooters could be a solution.  

 

Electric cars, unlock with your phone, pay as you go.  It would be great if they were driverless cars   It won't replace private ownership but could reduce the number of cars on the road.  If it's cost effective, people who just need a car to go to the shops or pop round to see friends and family could go for it.  Use the train to get between cities and pay as you go cars when you're there.

 

The scheme probably exists somewhere, I think it sounds reasonable on paper, but not sure what it would be like in the real world 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Perhaps it's not about completely getting rid of cars but if we could reduce car use by even 25%, surely that's a target to aim for?

 

I'm not the biggest fan of driving and have a real aversion to traffic. I'd much prefer to be on a train than in a car, in those circumstances. 

 

I find it incredibly frustrating that the last 8 times I've actually wanted to use the train, I've only been able to twice - due to strikes or cancellations.

Much prefer train travel than being in a car. Ideally short journeys should be by bus or walking with longer trips by train. Unfortunately government in the past has not valued public transport enough outside major cities. Look as how many bus services have been slashed over the years

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoyleFox

FoyleFox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Perhaps it's not about completely getting rid of cars but if we could reduce car use by even 25%, surely that's a target to aim for?

 

I'm not the biggest fan of driving and have a real aversion to traffic. I'd much prefer to be on a train than in a car, in those circumstances. 

 

I find it incredibly frustrating that the last 8 times I've actually wanted to use the train, I've only been able to twice - due to strikes or cancellations.

Cost, inconvenience and reliability deter me. Last time I looked at getting the train was for our game v Fulham.

I needed a bus to St Marg, walk to the train station, train from St Pancras to Putney. The main train element was £55+ each return and the trip would've taken about 4 hours, plus adding time for transfers and waiting around, each way.

Drove down in just over 2 hours. Half a tank of fuel and £8 to park.

 

I've looked at getting the bus to our home games, it's 30 minutes in the car and a 10-minute walk once in town. It's an hour minimum on the bus and a 35-minute walk. So, never going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

Gonna get v ugly v quickly in Gaza 

firing 5000 rockets is going to bring a heavy response but actually sending a big group into Israel (and randomly killing civilians) is a whole new level from hamas 

 

netenyahu is mainly in office because he is supposedly the strong man of Israeli politics - this is hugely embarrassing for him. So his response will try to put that narrative right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Gonna get v ugly v quickly in Gaza 

firing 5000 rockets is going to bring a heavy response but actually sending a big group into Israel (and randomly killing civilians) is a whole new level from hamas 

 

netenyahu is mainly in office because he is supposedly the strong man of Israeli politics - this is hugely embarrassing for him. So his response will try to put that narrative right.  

Bloodbath incoming. World is so f**ked at the moment. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...