Local Elections

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

I seriously doubt that people know exactly what they are paying for, and how much of what annoys them comes from poorly spent money, as opposed to insufficient money.

So, you've just basically pointed out what I've already pointed out to you?

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mozza

Seems to me people are tired of being punched in the face so have voted to be kicked in the nuts instead

Now, that's a stance I could vote for. Wait, which is worse again?

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

For the Tube at least you can bring down maintenance bills by replacing the entire signalling system for starters. The thing's decrepit, and is basically something cobbled together over decades. So you have one big capital investment and your maintenance bills fall for a fairly long period. That frees up money for other things. Same sort of principle applies to Heathrow, Crossrail, the DLR what have you.

That doesn't answer my point. Plus, it just repeats what I've already said, as in where's the management for this kind of thing? It's NOT more money needed, it's better filtering of that money.

Plechazunga · 3rd May 2008, 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

Yawn.

Serisously, yawn.

I voted for Boris because I wanted Ken out. I want Ken out because I travel the WHOLE of London on a daily basis and I think he is being unfair.

Is that easy enough to follow without trying to be clever?

Absolute shit, really it is.

A hell of a lot of people were fined for that mistake, but what about at the start when we weren't even allowed to pay weekly? Or monthly? Or when they fucked up the text system?

A fine is a fine, but not allowing people any time to correct an honest mistake is pure bullshit.

Again yawn.

Such an easy argument to make. Anecdotal in fact.

Re the penalty charge, it's quite simple, don't drive in the clearly-signposted zone during the clearly-marked hours of operation. If you do, try to remember to pay the 2 pound extra charge sometime over the next day. If you can't do that, the 40 quid penalty is your own fault, and if you can't remember to pay it within 14 days, the 80 quid is a reasonable punishment for being so clueless.

'Yawn' is a crap argument, which is what all your arguments have been in this thread... not arguments at all in fact, just assertions. Same goes for Nick's, and it seems to be par for the course for those who dislike Livingstone. That's why he's been voted out - people don't have many very good reasons for it, but they have a vague sense that he's not to be trusted. Well, the result is, we've now got Boris Johnson, and if you think - bizarrely - that Livingstone was somehow working against the interests of the working classes, you're in for a bit of an awakening.

Redlambs · 3rd May 2008, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Re the penalty charge, it's quite simple, don't drive in the clearly-signposted zone during the clearly-marked hours of operation. If you do, try to remember to pay the 2 pound extra charge sometime over the next day. If you can't do that, the 40 quid penalty is your own fault, and if you can't remember to pay it within 14 days, the 80 quid is a reasonable punishment for being so clueless.

You seem to be overlooking what I'm saying to you, so your argument is a little off balance.

Those new fines are just that, new. When did they come in and how long before that was he ripping people off?

Quote:

'Yawn' is a crap argument, which is what all your arguments have been in this thread... not arguments at all in fact, just assertions.

No, I say Yawn because I easily get bored of people who believe they are so right all the time that they don't take on board other peoples arguments.

It's the kind of false attitude that got Ken himself voted out. It's no surprise you wanted him back in.

Quote:

Same goes for Nick's, and it seems to be par for the course for those who dislike Livingstone.

So you keep asserting.

Quote:

That's why he's been voted out - people don't have many very good reasons for it, but they have a vague sense that he's not to be trusted.

I won't argue that may be true in a lot of cases, but so is the fact it's a bit silly lumping everyone into the same category, just because you disagree with their political beliefs.

Quote:

Well, the result is, we've now got Boris Johnson, and if you think - bizarrely - that Livingstone was somehow working against the interests of the working classes, you're in for a bit of an awakening.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll decide in four years time how I think he's done and vote accordingly. This is a democracy after all is it not?

Plechazunga · 3rd May 2008, 11:28

OK, feck it... we disagree but we normally agree on football so we might as well stop bickering

Redlambs · 3rd May 2008, 11:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

OK, feck it... we disagree but we normally agree on football so we might as well stop bickering

I disagree, I hated Liam Miller. But overall, I agree.

Good debate.

Plechazunga · 3rd May 2008, 11:41

He doesn't count, due to not existing.

p_ps_sock · 3rd May 2008, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyred

vote labour for an immigrant neighbour

this is what annoys my about todays PC society, as long as you don't use 'bad' words you can say what you want.

racists hold exactly the same views as they did 30 years ago and can still express them as long as they don't use words they know are taboo. The words are considered offensive because of the sentiments they contain, not because the words themselves are in anyway evil.

That post contain those exact same sentiments, exactly the same tactics the BNP use.

Fuck off you absolute cunt.

RedKaos · 3rd May 2008, 22:25

Ahh feck, Boris eh....no we truly are fecked.

ralphie88 · 4th May 2008, 14:38

Boris Johnston as mayor is frankly absurd. I wouldn't want his in charge of my city that's for sure.

IMO London and Boris deserve each other.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 4th May 2008, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

Boris Johnston as mayor is frankly absurd. I wouldn't want his in charge of my city that's for sure.

IMO London and Boris deserve each other.

You would inflict upon us the awful punishment of a third term of Ken?

RedKaos · 5th May 2008, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

Boris Johnston as mayor is frankly absurd. I wouldn't want his in charge of my city that's for sure.

IMO London and Boris deserve each other.

Its Johnson by the way

Wibble · 5th May 2008, 00:34

This Boris bloke looks and sounds like a comedy act. Having experienced Red Ken first hand in the 80's I wouldn't trust him to run a pub raffle.

Isn't there another choice? Drown them both and start again? Some sort of axe wielding rampage? Botulism?

ralphie88 · 5th May 2008, 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedKaos

Its Johnson by the way

Can't say I'm fussed. He's not mayor of Manchester so he can call himself what he wants.

Redlambs · 5th May 2008, 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

This Boris bloke looks and sounds like a comedy act. Having experienced Red Ken first hand in the 80's I wouldn't trust him to run a pub raffle.

Isn't there another choice? Drown them both and start again? Some sort of axe wielding rampage? Botulism?

That about sums it all up.

iguanamanc · 5th May 2008, 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

Boris Johnston as mayor is frankly absurd. I wouldn't want his in charge of my city that's for sure.

IMO London and Boris deserve each other.

My opinion also, just as they deserved Ken Livingstone after voting him in despite his previous stint as Leader of the GLC.

Surely some more credible alternative could have come forward - a modern day Dick Whittington perhaps, or at least his pet cat.

spinoza · 6th May 2008, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

You seriously should be a politician.

The argument isn't paying for "stuff", it's what the "stuff" we are paying for is. You can't expect to understand anything if you don't at least try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

I seriously doubt that people know exactly what they are paying for, and how much of what annoys them comes from poorly spent money, as opposed to insufficient money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

So, you've just basically pointed out what I've already pointed out to you?

No. I understood your first post to mean that people don't like what they are paying for, not that people don't know what they are paying for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

So you would drastically decrease mobility in one of the most congested cities in the World, let's say your plan was introduced which results in a 20% fall in usage. That would put another 500,000 people on the roads- London's roads can barely cope as it is, the city would literally grind to a halt.

The idea is to keep it moving.

I think "keeping it moving" prevents it from being repaired. Besides, the whole point of raising the prices is to exploit relatively inelastic demand. People who can afford to use the tube will continue to use it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

That doesn't answer my point. Plus, it just repeats what I've already said, as in where's the management for this kind of thing? It's NOT more money needed, it's better filtering of that money.

Look, you didn't have much of a point in the first place. You said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs
That's plain stupid. So he raises money for the public transport by trying to force cars off the road? And what would happen if he succeeded, where's the money coming from next?

You do realise that you can't just refurbish once, it's a forever ongoing situation? You can't keep dragging money from the working class with bollocks charges and raising council tax, then pretend it's benefiting them. You have to look at better, more self-sufficient ways. One of those ways is to change the structure.

There's no way to raise local government revenue other than taxes or return on investments, so you were talking out of your arse anyway. I chose not to address it because it was obviously wrong and boring. What you mean is that the mayor should impose taxes and charges more palatable to YOU. You're entitled to vote based on that of course, but don't expect me to agree.

The bit about refurbishment is a lot more interesting because you seem to assume that refurbishment bills always go up. It's not so, and it's a major reason why a big capital expenditure could go some way to bringing down ongoing maintenance bills. Try reading the published budget, it's a pretty good guide to what could be reduced.

Redlambs · 6th May 2008, 18:17

[quote=spinoza;4581035]No. I understood your first post to mean that people don't like what they are paying for, not that people don't know what they are paying for.[q/uote]

It meant both actually.

Quote:

Look, you didn't have much of a point in the first place.

Arrogant, brainless, nonsense.

Quote:

There's no way to raise local government revenue other than taxes or return on investments, so you were talking out of your arse anyway. I chose not to address it because it was obviously wrong and boring. What you mean is that the mayor should impose taxes and charges more palatable to YOU. You're entitled to vote based on that of course, but don't expect me to agree.

I don't expect you to agree, however I expect that you should at least try to debate on proper grounds without just assuming people's motives. You do it a lot, hence why debates involving you always lead down a shit path.

Quote:

The bit about refurbishment is a lot more interesting because you seem to assume that refurbishment bills always go up. It's not so, and it's a major reason why a big capital expenditure could go some way to bringing down ongoing maintenance bills. Try reading the published budget, it's a pretty good guide to what could be reduced.

Look, you obviously know your stuff, but what makes you ignorant is the assumptions you make. I'm involved in part of the underground refurbishment and I'm not assuming it will always go up at all, BUT it will always be there and always be at an inflated level.

My point, which you clearly misunderstood, is that forcing money out of car drivers (for example) to pay for an already pretty well funded public transport system which is failing for reasons not just due to financing is a pretty shit fix. Hence one of the reasons why the man is voted out. A lot of fellow business owners have done the same, purely because what the man offered us in shit in comparison to what he actually provided.

spinoza · 7th May 2008, 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

It meant both actually.

Ok, so we actually agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

Arrogant, brainless, nonsense.

I don't expect you to agree, however I expect that you should at least try to debate on proper grounds without just assuming people's motives. You do it a lot, hence why debates involving you always lead down a shit path.

Hey, I'm always happy to hear what you're saying. Don't expect me to sugar coat it if I disagree. Besides, if you recall, I said I didn't understand other people's motives, and it turns out that we actually agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

Look, you obviously know your stuff, but what makes you ignorant is the assumptions you make. I'm involved in part of the underground refurbishment and I'm not assuming it will always go up at all, BUT it will always be there and always be at an inflated level.

I thought you might be involved, which is why I was surprised when you said that the maintenance would always be high. I don't understand how can it always be at an inflated level if it doesn't always go up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

My point, which you clearly misunderstood, is that forcing money out of car drivers (for example) to pay for an already pretty well funded public transport system which is failing for reasons not just due to financing is a pretty shit fix. Hence one of the reasons why the man is voted out.

You should have said so. I would agree with part of that, but not the implicit assumption that fixing the finances won't fix a lot of the problems. And hence that forcing more money out of people in general won't solve many problems.

Redlambs · 7th May 2008, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

Ok, so we actually agree.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Hey, I'm always happy to hear what you're saying. Don't expect me to sugar coat it if I disagree. Besides, if you recall, I said I didn't understand other people's motives, and it turns out that we actually agree.

Again, fair enough.

Quote:

I thought you might be involved, which is why I was surprised when you said that the maintenance would always be high. I don't understand how can it always be at an inflated level if it doesn't always go up.

Terminology. By 'inflated' price, I meant it will always be higher than it should be, due to poor management.

Quote:

You should have said so. I would agree with part of that, but not the implicit assumption that fixing the finances won't fix a lot of the problems.

No it wouldn't, money does need pumping in as you say. However I'm merely pointing out that pumping money in right now isn't the answer.

It's like pumping galleons more water through a broken pipe just to make sure you can run a bath slightly faster.

The system has a lot of money flowing through it as it is, more is always needed of course, but placed correctly.

Quote:

And hence that forcing more money out of people in general won't solve many problems.

A lot of people wouldn't have a problem paying more money for things that actually work, however we find ourselves paying through the nose for everything, yet the trains and buses are getting worse, our hospitals are completely shit and if I wasn't paying for private care my pregnant Fiancee wouldn't even have a Midwife to look after her! We are supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world too.

spinoza · 7th May 2008, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

Fair enough.

Again, fair enough.

Terminology. By 'inflated' price, I meant it will always be higher than it should be, due to poor management.

No it wouldn't, money does need pumping in as you say. However I'm merely pointing out that pumping money in right now isn't the answer.

It's like pumping galleons more water through a broken pipe just to make sure you can run a bath slightly faster.

The system has a lot of money flowing through it as it is, more is always needed of course, but placed correctly.

A lot of people wouldn't have a problem paying more money for things that actually work, however we find ourselves paying through the nose for everything, yet the trains and buses are getting worse, our hospitals are completely shit and if I wasn't paying for private care my pregnant Fiancee wouldn't even have a Midwife to look after her! We are supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world too.

See, we really agree on many things...

Except the fact that Britain is one of the richest countries in the world

3rd May 2008, 11:28	#86 (permalink)
Plechazunga Phones, soup, paint and chairs are troubling. Join Date: May 2003 Location: My enthusiasm is the same. I love this club. It is not about brochures. Posts: 49,326	OK, feck it... we disagree but we normally agree on football so we might as well stop bickering

3rd May 2008, 11:41	#88 (permalink)
Plechazunga Phones, soup, paint and chairs are troubling. Join Date: May 2003 Location: My enthusiasm is the same. I love this club. It is not about brochures. Posts: 49,326	He doesn't count, due to not existing.

3rd May 2008, 22:25	#90 (permalink)
RedKaos Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Tentacles in my mouthLOL Posts: 1,968	Ahh feck, Boris eh....no we truly are fecked.

4th May 2008, 14:38	#91 (permalink)
ralphie88 Chief Tormentor Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: http://www.joinmust.org/ Posts: 4,651	Boris Johnston as mayor is frankly absurd. I wouldn't want his in charge of my city that's for sure. IMO London and Boris deserve each other.

5th May 2008, 00:34	#94 (permalink)
Wibble Teeth like a reindeer. Hung like a horse. Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Ingadus Speramus Posts: 33,161	This Boris bloke looks and sounds like a comedy act. Having experienced Red Ken first hand in the 80's I wouldn't trust him to run a pub raffle. Isn't there another choice? Drown them both and start again? Some sort of axe wielding rampage? Botulism?