No just lip service like public meetings for housing / developments
--
rustbucket (the original)
|
He (GB) is already doing exactly what he wants anyway.
The government has a huge pot of our money waiting to be dished out to councils for improving public transport.
The only provision being that the council must have plans in place for a road charging scheme before it is allowed to have any money.
So we pay for the improvements in public transport up front and then pay more for the privilege of having that money allocated to us.
It's a bit like paying council tax and then being asked if we should be charged to have our rubbish collected.
The online petitions are a complete waste of space - alot like our government. You get loads of people signing up and this is then followed by an e-mail from the pm's office saying thanks but your are still wrong and we will carry on regardless.
I love the democracy in this country. I have a theory that everyone should not vote at general election time and bring chaos to the whole system. You watch them sit up and listen then.
|
Actually the only time ive ever heard any real response is when the BNP gets a larger share of the vote - this DOES scare all the parties because the BNP is, well, scary and if it got to the stage where they were the opposition, maybe the other parties would rethink their ideas.
Look at the Tories - abandoned Tory values in favour of slightly modified Labour ones in order to get power and votes.
So if it looked like the BNP had polices that the public wanted ( and some of them on transport arent bad ), its always possible that Labour would take notice, as they did with inheritance tax stolen from Tories.
Not that I could quite bring myself to tick the BNP box at election, but a huge number of people I know openly discuss it now, so who knows. Shock tactics do work when MPs see their power eroding away. Problem is, someone is still voting for them.
|
My understanding is that GB doesn't drive or hold a licence (due to being blind in one eye?). Hardly surprising that he's so anti car.
We all know that our freedom is being eroded, I think the problem is that too many people in this country fall for the spin. After all, as you said someone is still voting for them!
Anyone have any more details of the BNP transport policy so we can compare against the labour and tory versions?
|
Anyone have any more details of the BNP transport policy so we can compare against the labour and tory versions?
white only lanes I think?
------
< Ulla>
|
What, lanes for white cars only?
What about those who choose to drive red or green cars? What lane are they going to drive in?
Seriously, though does anyone here have any knowledge on the transport policies of BNP, Labour and Tory? I ask because I admit that I have no idea.
|
Seriously, though does anyone here have any knowledge on the transport policies of BNP, Labour and Tory? I ask because I admit that I have no idea.
Nor i suspect do they.
------
< Ulla>
|
|
|
Moonshine.
The bnp transport policy is mixed in with its energy policy. Its a bit thin but from the manifesto:
- Alternate fuels like bio, hydrogen and renewables (wind sun sea etc)
- Many nuclear power stations
- High speed maglev train network
- New airport in thames estuary
- Dump road tax
- dump speed cameras
- dump congestion charges
"quote"
Congestion is a big problem, the reduction in population will resolve this!
------
< Ulla>
|
Here's my views on the BNP policy:
- Alternate fuels like bio, hydrogen and renewables (wind sun sea etc) - not so sure about the bio fuels part, I think that will cause other issues with food supply. I think we need to invest heavily in developing new technologies such as high capacity batteries and wind power.
- Many nuclear power stations - hate to say it, but I agree, I don't think we have any other choice.
- High speed maglev train network - cool, but could be expensive to build.
- New airport in thames estuary - I would rather see a reduction in air travel. Given that fuel costs are likely to increase this may not be required as air travel becomes more expensive. No doubt the road networks in that area would also need investment.
- Dump road tax - absolutly! I would be happy for extra tax to go fuel to balance the books.
- dump speed cameras - Horrahh!
- dump congestion charges - I think we should keep the CC for London, but ensure that the money is invested into public transport.
Can anyone provide a similar summary for the others to give a balanced view? On the whole I think BNP may have got it about right with their transport policy.
Edited by moonshine {P} on 23/11/2007 at 12:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that GB doesn't drive or hold a licence (due to being blind in one eye?).
He's not just blind in one eye - his other eye isn't very good either. It's been suggested that his impatience at getting the PM job was driven by the possibility that he might not have any vision at all quite soon.
|
|
|
|
>>Look at the Tories - abandoned Tory values in favour of slightly modified Labour ones in order to get power and votes.<<
Funny how you think there Stu cos I thought it was the other way round.
|
Looks like people suddenly got more interested in politics than football ;)
Good... better late than never.
|
|
|
|
So if it looked like the BNP had polices that the public wanted ( and some of them on transport arent bad ) its always possible that Labour would take notice as they did with inheritance tax stolen from Tories. Not that I could quite bring myself to tick the BNP box at election but a huge number of people I know openly discuss it now so who knows. Shock tactics do work when MPs see their power eroding away. Problem is someone is still voting for them.
You may not be aware of this, but votes cast for the BNP at elections are tracked back by means of the counterfoil numbers to the electors voter number. This information from our supposedly "secret ballot" elections is presumably passed to various Home Office bodies (e.g Police Firearms Licensing offices) identifying BNP voters as persons of interest.
George Orwell little realised how accurately he forecast future English Socialism in power.
|
George Orwell little realised how accurately he forecast future English Socialism in power.
Nothing to do with socialism. The cumbersome and partial mechanism for finding out how people have voted has always existed since I have been a voter.
Question is, who really cares? Especially as most voters are only too ready to explain what they have voted and in inordinate detail, why.
My father never admitted what he voted or whether or not he believed in God. People were cooler in years gone by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Will Mr Brown take any notice?"
I think he's a bit busy right now.. :-)
|
"Will Mr Brown take any notice?"
My question was really rhetorical, also it was not supposed to sitr up a politcal debate.
The issue is Road User Charging (RUC) which is a most ill thought out proposal!
Just think about it, you run Company A, it is based near a route subject to RUC, I run Company B that is not, your employees (of Company A) have to pay more to get to work, some cannot afford to, others demand more money from you, it effects your (Company A?s) competitiveness relative to my Company B and it suffers, you suffer, your employees suffer, you have to shed jobs, housing is effected in the area because of blight. Furthermore Company C relies on passing trade, RUC reduces passing trade, Company C suffers, the value of commercial property reduces in the area, such property becomes empty and ill maintained, eventually derelict, the image of the area suffers, it is a downward spiral.
And all the while those than can afford RUC drive on through in their S-Class Mercedes.
With the RUC policy there is no link to the length of journey, people travelling through an RUC area may well be travelling a shorter distance than those who are not so they have a lower environmental impact, why should they have to pay more? Yes improved public transport is vital though the answer is not to restrict travel, to the contrary, the answer is to improve the roads so congestion is lessened, so average speeds are raised and vehicles are not sitting inefficiently at idle, rather they are efficiently transporting their occupants to and from work, so journey times are reduced improving wellbeing via better work-life balance, so people are less stressed and more productive.
Taking 10% of the vehicles off the road by taxation is penalising people, demoralising them, making them less productive, less conducive to hard work and less conducive to making a worthwhile contribution to society.
On the other hand improving the roads to the extent that average speeds are raised by 10% (I am not even talking about raising limits, on many roads the average speed at some times of day is currently less than half of the speed limit!) reduces the journey times by 10%, reduces congestion by 10%, and reduces emissions by at least 10% because vehicle engines are running for 10% less time and are running more efficiently while doing so.
This is a great example of a policy being proposed as environmental when in fact it is short sighted, lacks vision and is completely lacking in joined-up-thinking.
52 v 16226 reflects its value well IMO.
|
"This is a great example of a policy being proposed as environmental when in fact it is short sighted, lacks vision and is completely lacking in joined-up-thinking."
Normal for government.
Why the surprise?
madf
|
|
|
|
|
