General Election: Where do the parties stand on cycling?

iandusud wrote:

It is shameful that health service and schools in Wales are seriously underperforming, but the funding (or lack of it) comes from central government.

It is fantastic that the UK is cutting its carbon emissions. That is in large part to the stopping of burning coal in favour of other forms of electricity production, which is great. However cutting of subsidies for solar power is not. We need to be investing more in renewables. If we are leading the way in reducing carbon emissions then that is a good thing, and if we keep it up it will hopefully encourage others to follow suit. Just like we led the way in abolishing slavery for example.

The graph looks impresive but it also indicates how bad things were. Our CO2 per capita figures are still higher than say France or Italy who are above the UK in that graph. Also that graph, for some bizare (convenient) reason doesn't include air travel or shipping. The UK has one of the highest rates of flights per capita in the world, higher than the USA where internal domestic flights are commonplace. UK air travel has steadily increased over the period covered by the graph. We also, by the very nature of being an island, have a huge dependency on shipping. 

While the overall Welsh Budget is based (via a complicated formula) on Westminster public spending the size of the health budget and the education budget is decided in Cardiff.

The Welsh Assembly Government have recently spent £100m on an airport and another £100m on motorway expansion plans. They've also blown a fair few million investing in Aston Martin.

Hardly great from a climate change perspective and definitely not the sort of thing you should be prioritising if your health service is struggling.

That's Labour's track record in Wales.

Hence why I won't be voting Labour.

Rich_cb wrote:

iandusud wrote:

It is shameful that health service and schools in Wales are seriously underperforming, but the funding (or lack of it) comes from central government.

It is fantastic that the UK is cutting its carbon emissions. That is in large part to the stopping of burning coal in favour of other forms of electricity production, which is great. However cutting of subsidies for solar power is not. We need to be investing more in renewables. If we are leading the way in reducing carbon emissions then that is a good thing, and if we keep it up it will hopefully encourage others to follow suit. Just like we led the way in abolishing slavery for example.

The graph looks impresive but it also indicates how bad things were. Our CO2 per capita figures are still higher than say France or Italy who are above the UK in that graph. Also that graph, for some bizare (convenient) reason doesn't include air travel or shipping. The UK has one of the highest rates of flights per capita in the world, higher than the USA where internal domestic flights are commonplace. UK air travel has steadily increased over the period covered by the graph. We also, by the very nature of being an island, have a huge dependency on shipping. 

While the overall Welsh Budget is based (via a complicated formula) on Westminster public spending the size of the health budget and the education budget is decided in Cardiff. The Welsh Assembly Government have recently spent £100m on an airport and another £100m on motorway expansion plans. They've also blown a fair few million investing in Aston Martin. Hardly great from a climate change perspective and definitely not the sort of thing you should be prioritising if your health service is struggling. That's Labour's track record in Wales. Hence why I won't be voting Labour.

Well I have to conceed that your criticisms of the Welsh Assembly are fair - that is poor record.

My perspective is that of the track record of the Tory government on the NHS, education and their active transport budget. Also Boris Johnson is clearly a control freek who has deliberately avoided any serious interviews with the media during the election campaign because he knows he's a pathologoc liar and therefore cannot stand up to scrutiny. How anyone could think he can be trusted in government is beyond me. 

Compact Corned Beef wrote:

I’m mostly on board with Labour’s policies, but the whole WASPI thing seems off. Is it fair that the state pension age should be equal? Yes. Is fifteen years long enough notice? Yes. Was the legislation passed in a proper way? Yes. So to describe it as ‘robbery’ makes no sense at all.

I'm fine with the basic change, but they subsequently accelerated it with very little notice. That final change-on-top-of-a-change seems unfair on those affected by it and should be reversed/compensated for. But insofar as the waspi thing is about objecting to any change at all I disagree with it.

Rich_cb wrote:

Labour are proposing to increase Government spending by £145 billion per year over the course of the next parliament (Spending+Investment+WASPI bribe compensation).

I don't really think that's achievable and when they start looking for promises to break I'm guessing active travel will be near the top of the list.

The £50 per head idea is fantastic, I just don't trust Labour to deliver it.

The Conservative pledge is awful but it's so awful it's at least believable.

To be honest, I'd live without active travel investment if it means schools and hospitals are properly funded, kids aren't starving, and people with disabilities aren't being killed.

dglsdms wrote:

To be honest, I'd live without active travel investment if it means schools and hospitals are properly funded, kids aren't starving, and people with disabilities aren't being killed.

But could you live without hyperbole?

Rich_cb wrote:

dglsdms wrote:

To be honest, I'd live without active travel investment if it means schools and hospitals are properly funded, kids aren't starving, and people with disabilities aren't being killed.

But could you live without hyperbole?

You realise all these things are widely reported, right? I guess writing it off as hyperbole helps with that tricky cognitive dissonance though.

dglsdms wrote:

You realise all these things are widely reported, right? I guess writing it off as hyperbole helps with that tricky cognitive dissonance though.

There are children starving? Literally starving?

Or was that hyperbole?

Rich_cb wrote:

Labour are proposing to increase Government spending by £145 billion per year over the course of the next parliament (Spending+Investment+WASPI bribe compensation). I don't really think that's achievable and when they start looking for promises to break I'm guessing active travel will be near the top of the list. The £50 per head idea is fantastic, I just don't trust Labour to deliver it. The Conservative pledge is awful but it's so awful it's at least believable.

You do realise that the labour manifesto has been fully costed, checked by independent economists and recommended by 140 of them?  The amount they want to spend would bring us up to the European average, so it's hardly fantastic, just realistic.  Stop believing whichever billionaire owned newspaper you waste your money on and do a little research.

burtthebike wrote:

You do realise that the labour manifesto has been fully costed, checked by independent economists and recommended by 140 of them?  The amount they want to spend would bring us up to the European average, so it's hardly fantastic, just realistic.  Stop believing whichever billionaire owned newspaper you waste your money on and do a little research.

I have done extensive research. Have you? Did you realise that the £50+ billion promised to WASPI women was not costed at all in the Labour manifesto?

A good independent breakdown of the flaws with each of the major party's manifestos is here:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/don-t-expect-those-carefull...

BTW. I'm still waiting for you to explain how Corbyn can make statement that is indisputably false and yet have never told a lie?

Rich_cb][quote=burtthebike wrote:

BTW. I'm still waiting for you to explain how Corbyn can make statement that is indisputably false and yet have never told a lie?

It isn't indisputable, and you have failed to prove your case multiple times.

From one of your previous posts "Also if you think Corbyn has never lied you've clearly not been paying attention to the anti-semitism scandal.

He's lied repeatedly throughout."

And yet despite your assertion that he's lied repeatedly throughout, you can only find one example and you can't prove that.

burtthebike wrote:

It isn't indisputable, and you have failed to prove your case multiple times.

From one of your previous posts "Also if you think Corbyn has never lied you've clearly not been paying attention to the anti-semitism scandal.

He's lied repeatedly throughout."

And yet despite your assertion that he's lied repeatedly throughout, you can only find one example and you can't prove that.

 

A national newspaper found comprehensive proof that Corbyn made a factually incorrect statement during his interview with Andrew Neil.

Do you dispute the evidence in the Times?

There's little point in going in to other examples of Corbyn's dishonesty if you refuse to accept irrefutable proof on this occasion.

As for Livingstone: Learn. To. Read.

It clearly and explicitly accuses Livingstone of Holocaust denial.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

 

As for Livingstone: Learn. To. Read. It clearly and explicitly accuses Livingstone of Holocaust denial.

Thank you for your advice, but my comprehension is already excellent, and considerably better than yours, or perhaps you have your own peculiar definition of explicit that isn't in the dictionary.  Kindly post a quote from the article which clearly and explicitly accuses Livingstone of holocaust denial, because I've read it twice and nowhere does it say that.  But being a tory, you think that what you think is the truth; bad news, you're wrong again.

burtthebike wrote:

Thank you for your advice, but my comprehension is already excellent, and considerably better than yours, or perhaps you have your own peculiar definition of explicit that isn't in the dictionary.  Kindly post a quote from the article which clearly and explicitly accuses Livingstone of holocaust denial, because I've read it twice and nowhere does it say that.  But being a tory, you think that what you think is the truth; bad news, you're wrong again.

Your cognitive dissonance can clearly overpower your comprehension skills.

She directly refers to what Livingstone said , then labels that as anti-semitic and denial.

How can you read that as anything other than accusing Livingstone of Holocaust denial?

"You have a former mayor here in London [Ken Livingstone] who would talk about the cooperation between the Zionists and the Nazis,” she said. "He took one little historical fact and blew it up into something that never existed, completely twisted the truth. Irrespective of how you feel about him politically - its historically rubbish. “But it’s more than that it’s a form of anti- Semitism.That’s the kind of softcore denial I worry about much more. It’s subtly anti-Semitic and its clearly denial because it rewrites history.”

Seriously, how can you?

Still waiting for your opinion on the Times' evidence btw.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Thank you for your advice, but my comprehension is already excellent, and considerably better than yours, or perhaps you have your own peculiar definition of explicit that isn't in the dictionary.  Kindly post a quote from the article which clearly and explicitly accuses Livingstone of holocaust denial, because I've read it twice and nowhere does it say that.  But being a tory, you think that what you think is the truth; bad news, you're wrong again.

Your cognitive dissonance can clearly overpower your comprehension skills. She directly refers to what Livingstone said , then labels that as anti-semitic and denial. How can you read that as anything other than accusing Livingstone of Holocaust denial? "You have a former mayor here in London [Ken Livingstone] who would talk about the cooperation between the Zionists and the Nazis,” she said. "He took one little historical fact and blew it up into something that never existed, completely twisted the truth. Irrespective of how you feel about him politically - its historically rubbish. “But it’s more than that it’s a form of anti- Semitism.That’s the kind of softcore denial I worry about much more. It’s subtly anti-Semitic and its clearly denial because it rewrites history.” Seriously, how can you?

Cambridge English dictionary:

"explicit
adjective
uk
clear and exact:"

Not wooly and vague.  Sorry, is English not your first language?
 

burtthebike wrote:

Cambridge English dictionary:

"explicit
adjective
uk
clear and exact:"

Not wooly and vague.  Sorry, is English not your first language?
 

"It's clearly denial"

That's the most pertinent part of the quote.

How is that not explicit?

Btw still waiting for you to comment on the Times evidence?

Never mind, Corbyn is history.

If Labour elect another leader with similar politics and prejudices they will be too.

biker phil wrote:

Labour may well be promising more money, as with all their policies. But it is pretty meaningless when we will be bankrupt next year if they get in.

Daily Mail much?

Jimmy Walnuts wrote:

biker phil wrote:

Labour may well be promising more money, as with all their policies. But it is pretty meaningless when we will be bankrupt next year if they get in.

 

Daily Mail much?

The Tories are actually responsible with money. Hence why we don't have any starving children, families living in bed and breakfasts, schools not being able to afford books, or people not being able to get hospital beds. Those things are all, in fact, Labour's fault, or immigrants or something.

Jimmy Walnuts wrote:

biker phil wrote:

Labour may well be promising more money, as with all their policies. But it is pretty meaningless when we will be bankrupt next year if they get in.

 

Daily Mail much?

Not at all. Common sense. Anyone with half a brain can see that a Corbyn Government is a frightening prospect. Back to the 1970s, in fact it would be much worse than the 1970s. Corbyn is brainwashing retarded fuckwits with free this, free that. What a world it would be. 

burtthebike wrote:

Not only is the tory commitment to cycling pathetic, only a fool would believe they are actually going to spend even that tiny amount, and their record is appalling, even if their rhetoric is good.

OK, cycling is far from the only policy on which to decide who to vote for, but any cyclist would have to think twice about voting tory, and any alternative is better.

Call me crazy, but wasn't it a Tory Mayor of London who led the explosion of cycling infrastructure in the capital? For sure, the idea might have started with Livingstone the Holocaust denier, but there's a BIG difference between having an idea and making it happen. Ignorant statement as always by left-wing tribal voters.

alexuk wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Not only is the tory commitment to cycling pathetic, only a fool would believe they are actually going to spend even that tiny amount, and their record is appalling, even if their rhetoric is good.

OK, cycling is far from the only policy on which to decide who to vote for, but any cyclist would have to think twice about voting tory, and any alternative is better.

Call me crazy, but wasn't it a Tory Mayor of London who led the explosion of cycling infrastructure in the capital? For sure, the idea might have started with Livingstone the Holocaust denier, but there's a BIG difference between having an idea and making it happen. Ignorant statement as always by left-wing tribal voters.

So you tell a gross exaggeration followed by a blatant lie in the cause of your partisan loyalties, then call others 'tribal'. Yeah, I don't call you crazy, I call you a crap propagandist. You need to be more subtle.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So you tell a gross exaggeration followed by a blatant lie in the cause of your partisan loyalties, then call others 'tribal'. Yeah, I don't call you crazy, I call you a crap propagandist. You need to be more subtle.

[/quote] 

Honestly, can you point out the blatant lie and gross exageration? I must be a doofus, stupid or just too ignorant to see it in the post. Thank you in advance.

Pushing50 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So you tell a gross exaggeration followed by a blatant lie in the cause of your partisan loyalties, then call others 'tribal'. Yeah, I don't call you crazy, I call you a crap propagandist. You need to be more subtle.

 

 

 

[ 

Honestly, can you point out the blatant lie and gross exageration? I must be a doofus, stupid or just too ignorant to see it in the post. Thank you in advance.

Glad you admit to being a doofus and stupid. Now you've admitted it, perhaps you'll stop posting?

Do I really need to do this? Are you genuinely that dim, or are you just blinded by bias?

Show me where Ken Livingstone, for all his monomania and poor-judgement with regard to Israel, has denied the Holocaust. Then show me this 'explosion' in cycle infrastructure and how it isn't, in fact, just one or two half-decent new segregated cycle routes that have only increased cycling's modal share of journeys by a very modest amount.
Then get back to me.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Glad you admit to being a doofus and stupid. Now you've admitted it, perhaps you'll stop posting?

Do I really need to do this? Are you genuinely that dim, or are you just blinded by bias?

Show me where Ken Livingstone, for all his monomania and poor-judgement with regard to Israel, has denied the Holocaust. Then show me this 'explosion' in cycle infrastructure and how it isn't, in fact, just one or two half-decent new segregated cycle routes that have only increased cycling's modal share of journeys by a very modest amount.
Then get back to me.

Professor of Holocaust Studies and international expert on anti-Semitism labelling Livingstone a Holocaust denier here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/07/02/labour-responsible-rise...

Explosion is obviously a subjective term. Nobody can deny that Johnson oversaw an increase in cycling infrastructure and modal share though.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Glad you admit to being a doofus and stupid. Now you've admitted it, perhaps you'll stop posting?

Do I really need to do this? Are you genuinely that dim, or are you just blinded by bias?

Show me where Ken Livingstone, for all his monomania and poor-judgement with regard to Israel, has denied the Holocaust. Then show me this 'explosion' in cycle infrastructure and how it isn't, in fact, just one or two half-decent new segregated cycle routes that have only increased cycling's modal share of journeys by a very modest amount.
Then get back to me.

Professor of Holocaust Studies and international expert on anti-Semitism labelling Livingstone a Holocaust denier here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/07/02/labour-responsible-rise...

Explosion is obviously a subjective term. Nobody can deny that Johnson oversaw an increase in cycling infrastructure and modal share though.

One person's opinion, and even then your link doesn't back up the claim made. They say, in a rather vague and curiously one-sided way, that Labour has encouraged the growth of 'soft core holocaust denial', which they define as 'criticising Israel too strongly'. Not that convincing or relevant to your case (even though I certainly agree people shouldn't use Nazi analogies when speaking of Israel).

Any comment on your pal Johnson's support for the openly and actively anti-Semitic Viktor Orban or employing of Taki, by the way? Why the one-sided emphasis on Labour?

The increase in modal share is still very small. Hardly an 'explosion'. Given how unimpressive Khan has been, I do wonder if it wouldn't have been better all-round if Johnson had somehow been forcibly kept on as mayor and hence not able to do all that damage as foreign-secretary and now PM. Just have to stop him engaging in any more garden bridges and keep him fighting with black cabbies instead.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Glad you admit to being a doofus and stupid. Now you've admitted it, perhaps you'll stop posting? Do I really need to do this? Are you genuinely that dim, or are you just blinded by bias? Show me where Ken Livingstone, for all his monomania and poor-judgement with regard to Israel, has denied the Holocaust. Then show me this 'explosion' in cycle infrastructure and how it isn't, in fact, just one or two half-decent new segregated cycle routes that have only increased cycling's modal share of journeys by a very modest amount. Then get back to me.

Professor of Holocaust Studies and international expert on anti-Semitism labelling Livingstone a Holocaust denier here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/07/02/labour-responsible-rise... Explosion is obviously a subjective term. Nobody can deny that Johnson oversaw an increase in cycling infrastructure and modal share though.

One person's opinion, and even then your link doesn't back up the claim made. They say, in a rather vague and curiously one-sided way, that Labour has encouraged the growth of 'soft core holocaust denial', which they define as 'criticising Israel too strongly'. Not that convincing or relevant to your case (even though I certainly agree people shouldn't use Nazi analogies when speaking of Israel). Any comment on your pal Johnson's support for the openly and actively anti-Semitic Viktor Orban or employing of Taki, by the way? Why the one-sided emphasis on Labour? The increase in modal share is still very small. Hardly an 'explosion'. Given how unimpressive Khan has been, I do wonder if it wouldn't have been better all-round if Johnson had somehow been forcibly kept on as mayor and hence not able to do all that damage as foreign-secretary and now PM. Just have to stop him engaging in any more garden bridges and keep him fighting with black cabbies instead.

There does seem to be a lot of focus on accusations of Labour being anti-semitic and very little focus on Tories' anti-Islamic stance. Why did they cancel that inquiry into Islamophobia?

Also, why isn't the report on Russia meddling in UK politics being published? I would ask "do they have something to hide", but they so obviously do have so much to hide that Jacob Rees-Mogg has been put to sleep in his coffin for the election period.