Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 48 of 48 FirstFirst ... 38464748
Results 1,411 to 1,426 of 1426

Thread: Politics now. The State We're In.

  1. #1411  
    Coach791 is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,506
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    It is the role of government to encourage behaviour that benefits society as a whole. Or in some cases, discourage bad behaviour (taxes on cigarettes for example, diesel taxes for pollution etc...).

    You don't want everyone driving into city centres, both for environmental reasons and congestion reasons (which will block taxis, couriers etc...) - it would be chaos. So you discourage it by having limited parking.

    The issue I have is public transport is too expensive. Positive reinforcement is stronger than negative reinforcement. Limited parking and fines is negative, if they subsidised or capped profits or even nationalised public transport to greatly reduce costs that would be the ultimate encouragement to ditch your car.
    I would believe that Jared if public transport was invested in, cycle paths, alternative methods of entry into the city centre. However when you do none of those and simply cordon off the city and charge drivers more and fine them then there's just no evidence where I live this is the conditioning you speak of.

    The policy is clear. No public transport improvements, no alternative access to city centre and the focus still exactly on drivers, bus and taxis and just charge you more or fine you. The evidence is increasing costs of public transport with no improvement to service, increasing parking costs and no improvements.

    No investment in alternative methods of entry, obvious increases in parking costs and increases in transport costs and with no improvements to either. You said yourself public transport is too expensive.

    There's a reason for that Jared. More cars, less space, higher parking, more fines and higher public transport costs with no investment. Are you certain are councils are benevolent and just trying to protect the city centre? There's no evidence of it.

    Now if public transport was increased, if alternative methods of entry given, access for cycles increased then yes I'd agree that the policy you speak of could move people towards alternative methods of city centre entry to alleviate pressure on roads.

    However none of that is happening. Pressure on roads is not alleviated because there are no alternatives. Parking costs go up, public transport costs go up and fines increase.

    I'm not suggesting that's the policy where you are from. Just here.

    I wouldn't agree with more parking either. The obvious answer is alternative methods of entry. Increase in cycle paths, walkway into the centre. Parking outside the city centre improved with shuttle or walkways. Design flaws with overcrowding are obvious but charging people more but offering nothing else isn't looking to help city centre.
    Last edited by Coach791; 21-4-17 at 13:39.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1412  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    25,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Ron that is a great point. I absolutely mean that. I've not known you too often to consider the bigger picture as well as the individual and see that are not mutually exclusive. I fully expected your position to be 'stupid peasants' there is a sign they're just lazy on their phones............fine them!

    In some cases that would be true. However as you rightly point out the system itself causes problems with too many cars, too few spaces and punishing people for that is strange. A fantastic point Ron, it really is.
    I always consider the options/angles - discard what doesn't fit and all that
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1413  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    I would believe that Jared if public transport was invested in, cycle paths, alternative methods of entry into the city centre. However when you do none of those and simply cordon off the city and charge drivers more and fine them then there's just no evidence where I live this is the conditioning you speak of.

    The policy is clear. No public transport improvements, no alternative access to city centre and the focus still exactly on drivers, bus and taxis and just charge you more or fine you. The evidence is increasing costs of public transport with no improvement to service, increasing parking costs and no improvements.

    No investment in alternative methods of entry, obvious increases in parking costs and increases in transport costs and with no improvements to either. You said yourself public transport is too expensive.

    There's a reason for that Jared. More cars, less space, higher parking, more fines and higher public transport costs with no investment. Are you certain are councils are benevolent and just trying to protect the city centre? There's no evidence of it.

    Now if public transport was increased, if alternative methods of entry given, access for cycles increased then yes I'd agree that the policy you speak of could move people towards alternative methods of city centre entry to alleviate pressure on roads.

    However none of that is happening. Pressure on roads is not alleviated because there are no alternatives. Parking costs go up, public transport costs go up and fines increase.
    Like I said, you're speaking about your city and I of mine. London has loads of alternative means of transportation into the city, it is developing cycleways, more tube lines, car sharing services, more bus services, whilst it simultaneously increases congestion charges and parking charges.

    And the result is this, reduced cars in the city falling consistently since 1990. It works.

    http://www.citymetric.com/transport/...-peak-car-1285

    Like I said, the problem is transport costs are exorbitant but that is a whole other discussion we've had many times about privatisation of railways, profits, efficiencies etc....

    The underlying point is limited parking is to discourage people using cars. Now if that power is being abused, if money isn't being used to provide alternatives etc... then yes it is wrongly punitive - but that is the issue, not the concept of parking fines in the first place.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1414  
    Coach791 is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,506
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    Like I said, you're speaking about your city and I of mine. London has loads of alternative means of transportation into the city, it is developing cycleways, more tube lines, car sharing services, more bus services, whilst it simultaneously increases congestion charges and parking charges.

    And the result is this, reduced cars in the city falling consistently since 1990. It works.

    http://www.citymetric.com/transport/...-peak-car-1285

    Like I said, the problem is transport costs are exorbitant but that is a whole other discussion we've had many times about privatisation of railways, profits, efficiencies etc....

    The underlying point is limited parking is to discourage people using cars. Now if that power is being abused, if money isn't being used to provide alternatives etc... then yes it is wrongly punitive - but that is the issue, not the concept of parking fines in the first place.
    London is very different. The City of London is an economic monster. It has such wealth that it's too expensive for the mass work force to live there. Therefore the transport links must be exceptional to allow the daily commute of those the keep the machine ticking over.

    That's how we know with correct infrastructure even a behemoth on the scale of London can work. That's why we know for certain other cities are neglected either through lack of investment or lack of interest. It isn't the fact it can't be done because London is evidence even the largest cities can work with great public transport.

    In other cities they don't bother. They don't invest in public transport or alternative transport and simply charge more or fine. It's actually a microcosm of how government views the UK economy. London is to be supported by sucking dry everywhere else.

    That's the whole point of the high speed rail network being built in the UK. The public position is it is to help poorer parts of the country connect with 'the capital' and that will benefit the poorer parts. It sounds wonderful but is quite frankly ridiculous.

    When weaker parts of the economy connect to the centre of the economy it again isn't benevolent, it will suck them dry. When you consider the rate of expansion of London, rising house prices and how people are being pushed out of their homes the monster is growing.

    What happens when the monster runs short of food supply? You just create more food and those arteries from cities outside of London will feed it. There will be a huge increase in work force commuting to London from other cities at high speed and then commuting home. Solving the problem of workers meeting rising housing costs in London, providing talent and skills to corporations at even lower costs from outside of London.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1415  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    London is very different. The City of London is an economic monster. It has such wealth that it's too expensive for the mass work force to live there. Therefore the transport links must be exceptional to allow the daily commute of those the keep the machine ticking over.

    That's how we know with correct infrastructure even a behemoth on the scale of London can work. That's why we know for certain other cities are neglected either through lack of investment or lack of interest. It isn't the fact it can't be done because London is evidence even the largest cities can work with great public transport.

    In other cities they don't bother. They don't invest in public transport or alternative transport and simply charge more or fine. It's actually a microcosm of how government views the UK economy. London is to be supported by sucking dry everywhere else.

    That's the whole point of the high speed rail network being built in the UK. The public position is it is to help poorer parts of the country connect with 'the capital' and that will benefit the poorer parts. It sounds wonderful but is quite frankly ridiculous.

    When weaker parts of the economy connect to the centre of the economy it again isn't benevolent, it will suck them dry. When you consider the rate of expansion of London, rising house prices and how people are being pushed out of their homes the monster is growing.

    What happens when the monster runs short of food supply? You just create more food and those arteries from cities outside of London will feed it. There will be a huge increase in work force commuting to London from other cities at high speed and then commuting home. Solving the problem of workers meeting rising housing costs in London, providing talent and skills to corporations at even lower costs from outside of London.
    You wont get any arguments from me on the under-investment of other areas.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1416  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    25,687
    France is at the polls today

    French voters are choosing their next president

    Eleven candidates are competing

    If no candidate wins 50%, the two with the most votes will go into a run-off in two weeks
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1417  
    naturalskill is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31,930
    New factual video exposing the Global Banking Cartel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK3s5j7PgA
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1418  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,795
    Anyone see the snippets from Varoufakis' new book? Pretty eye opening, he has basically recorded conversations with EU officials and then accounted for them compared to their public statements.

    Does not paint the EU in a good light at all, probably best not show Ghyllred

    Interesting "recommendations" for May and Brexit in there, says they get you on the process. Will deliberately mislead, pretend they don't know or need to check things during the day and then at night will push through a raft of stuff at night. In general just very undemocratic and conniving.

    Despite all this he still recommends staying in, not because he likes the EU or because he would have recommended the system in the first place, but because now its there there is more chance working within it.

    Unfortunately the Telegraph is behind a pay wall, so can't post it. Definitely worth checking out.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1419  
    Coach791 is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,506
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    Anyone see the snippets from Varoufakis' new book? Pretty eye opening, he has basically recorded conversations with EU officials and then accounted for them compared to their public statements.

    Does not paint the EU in a good light at all, probably best not show Ghyllred

    Interesting "recommendations" for May and Brexit in there, says they get you on the process. Will deliberately mislead, pretend they don't know or need to check things during the day and then at night will push through a raft of stuff at night. In general just very undemocratic and conniving.

    Despite all this he still recommends staying in, not because he likes the EU or because he would have recommended the system in the first place, but because now its there there is more chance working within it.

    Unfortunately the Telegraph is behind a pay wall, so can't post it. Definitely worth checking out.
    We cannot let democracy get in the way of economic policy. Varoufakis said publicly on tape the only thing the world would need to change is the EU meetings streamed live
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1420  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,076
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    Anyone see the snippets from Varoufakis' new book? Pretty eye opening, he has basically recorded conversations with EU officials and then accounted for them compared to their public statements.

    Does not paint the EU in a good light at all, probably best not show Ghyllred

    Interesting "recommendations" for May and Brexit in there, says they get you on the process. Will deliberately mislead, pretend they don't know or need to check things during the day and then at night will push through a raft of stuff at night. In general just very undemocratic and conniving.

    Despite all this he still recommends staying in, not because he likes the EU or because he would have recommended the system in the first place, but because now its there there is more chance working within it.

    Unfortunately the Telegraph is behind a pay wall, so can't post it. Definitely worth checking out.
    Interesting, thanks for the pointer.

    Funny, I have sat in many EU meetings and what you see on the outside is completely different to the arguments behind closed doors. Each 'power' state is busy extracting concessions in return for signing up to policies that they had no interest in the first place.

    Their negotiators don't have the authority to actually do too much without having to run things past capitals so that might explain the delays (they always ask for 'flexible wording'. But their strength, in my view, is in their skill at compromise. They are not bound by as many red lines as member states are and when they are restricted they call a QMV and use friendlier states to pass the resolutions (in return for favours in other portfolios).
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1421  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,795
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    Interesting, thanks for the pointer.

    Funny, I have sat in many EU meetings and what you see on the outside is completely different to the arguments behind closed doors. Each 'power' state is busy extracting concessions in return for signing up to policies that they had no interest in the first place.

    Their negotiators don't have the authority to actually do too much without having to run things past capitals so that might explain the delays (they always ask for 'flexible wording'. But their strength, in my view, is in their skill at compromise. They are not bound by as many red lines as member states are and when they are restricted they call a QMV and use friendlier states to pass the resolutions (in return for favours in other portfolios).
    From the sounds of what Varoufakis says, the only people with real power in terms of the economics are a bunch of German technocrats who single handedly pull all the financial strings - he even said they put a French person in power purely for show and then completely puppeteered him behind closed doors.

    I think the central bank and finances of the EU need to be separated from everything else, when discussing these things. Overall I think in terms of social reform, regulations, consumer protections, immigration, etc... - the EU has been beneficial in the direction they have gone. Economics is a different matter, however - they really are just another backroom elite rolling out neoliberal policy to extract wealth from the masses.

    I'm not sure what aspect of discussion you would have been in? But you do make an interesting point in that member states are all tied to a number of rules and regulations but the EU themselves are not. That sort of sums up the problem.

    After obviously being closely watched militarily, its basically Germany's way of expansion and ruling again.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1422  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,076
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    From the sounds of what Varoufakis says, the only people with real power in terms of the economics are a bunch of German technocrats who single handedly pull all the financial strings - he even said they put a French person in power purely for show and then completely puppeteered him behind closed doors.

    I think the central bank and finances of the EU need to be separated from everything else, when discussing these things. Overall I think in terms of social reform, regulations, consumer protections, immigration, etc... - the EU has been beneficial in the direction they have gone. Economics is a different matter, however - they really are just another backroom elite rolling out neoliberal policy to extract wealth from the masses.

    I'm not sure what aspect of discussion you would have been in? But you do make an interesting point in that member states are all tied to a number of rules and regulations but the EU themselves are not. That sort of sums up the problem.

    After obviously being closely watched militarily, its basically Germany's way of expansion and ruling again.
    I worked on a few portfolios within trade and in JHA. To give an example - only a few Member States (MS) have an interest in sanctions - mainly the bigger MS and those from Northern Europe. But in Commission meetings where we decide an EU position, a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) vote is called if there are major differences of opinion. In that situation, many more MS will turn up to vote despite having no interest in the months of discussions beforehand, and they will vote either to support their historic EU block or vote in line with the Commission (at the request of the Commission) and for both expect support on issues that they DO care about in other portfolios. In short MS are happy to block most humanitarian or moral initiatives in order to further their own financial (always trade) interests. It's why the EU is good for making money but crappy as a moral example on issues outside of Europe unless pushed for by 2 of the big 3.

    As the Commission draft the 'lines to take' or 'negotiating position' for QMV - they have considerable power due to the form of words they decide and what they propose (only they can propose). Objections usually happen before a QMV rather than objecting to the QMV. By the time one is called the outcome is already known. It's why we shouldn't hold too much stock in figures showing how many times we or others actually tried to veto the EU. If we know we will lose, we usually abstain unless we are making a point.

    Biggest non-UK losers to us leaving are the northern europeans who almost always support our position due to similar thinking (i've been at meetings where the Danish and Irish reps (sometimes Swedish, Finnish and Dutch too) have bluntly told me they are instructed by their govt to take up whatever position the UK decides (due to trust in us (and our resources and similar ambitions) not anything else). This sometimes includes Germany. Germany's attention was on EU/Eurozone and finance focused portfolios while ours was more Global affairs and Trade.

    Bottom line is the UK does not have the QMV numbers and with the Commission taking more responsibilities, it means we are less able to control what we want. It's now not just the UK and 27 other MS, but a powerful Commission and now increasingly powerful parliament. Commission can divide and rule by preying on MS apathy and restricted resources meaning most MS only focus on select portfolios rather than all.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1423  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,795
    Cheers mate, very interesting. I've heard before of the Commission's power and nice to hear it first hand as well.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1424  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,076
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    Cheers mate, very interesting. I've heard before of the Commission's power and nice to hear it first hand as well.
    It's our biggest brexit obstacle. Rather than be instructed by MS capitals (via council), the Commission itself took a hard inflexible position based on fear and ideology. Usually we would rely on the Commission to do the compromising for us - so now it will come down to how ********** off Commission bosses are and a game of chicken.
    Last edited by DantesShadow; 3-5-17 at 12:59.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1425  
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    It's our biggest brexit obstacle. Rather than be instructed by MS capitals (via council), the Commission itself took a hard inflexible position based on fear and ideology. Usually we would rely on the Commission to do the compromising for us - so now it will come down to how ********** off Commission bosses are and a game of chicken.
    tHESE people are born twits.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...mment-97780602
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1426  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,076
    Quote Originally Posted by trinired View Post
    Who? The Commission, The PM and the writer of that article can be rightly charged with that!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •