Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New polling suggests that voters are becoming more comforta
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New polling suggests that voters are becoming more comfortable with multi party government
One of the reasons why the LDs went into coalition in 2010 because they wanted to show that multi-party governments were possible. This followed an intensive end to the GE10 campaign when much of the Tory focus was designed increase worries and about what having an inconclusive outcome might mean.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Besides which, consensus is contrary to democracy. How can we have choice if we have parties A, B and C, and all agree (on foreign aid, for example)? It's not a real choice unless it makes a difference.
That also leads to parties being ever more similar and ever further apart from a great many ordinary people, which is why smaller parties are doing so well.
Well, any cobbled together deal that would keep the Conservatives out of power wouldn't be too bad, really.
Just as well if the polls are to be believed.
Polling at the moment is a complete waste of space.
Come back later in January.
Is the education the best that our children need to compete in a global context, is our health system of the right pattern and able to both cope with demand and deliver medical advances, etc etc.
Perhaps a coalition leads to more prevarication and inefficiency which means an ever gradual slide down the global rankings. Does a coalition lead to a lack of aspiration and settling for second-best?
Probably to achieve the most a coalition needs an outstanding leader and those are in very short supply in the UK.
"too dominant" - too dominant is, by definition bad. Too much of anything is bad.
... I must confess I wrote that before reading your second paragraph. And I'm still entirely correct. 'Pre-prepared'... what other kind of bloody preparing is there? Preparing after something's happened? The exact prefix is already in the damned word.
Golly. This isn't a universe I recognise!
WTF? How can you pre-consider something? Either you are or you aren't.
(As aside I've spent a little time thinking about this because my office is very close to the Northbank egress)
@isam TfL is spending £30m on redeveloping Temple Tube, which needs redevelopment anyway. The government is foregoing VAT on the project rather than investing cash into it. It may be a "waste on money" but it has been money that has been raised from private individuals & they should be allowed to waste it if they wish
And the issue with Blackfriars and Waterloo is that they are terrible for pedestrians: they were simply not designed with them in mind
@TheWatcher
re: Northbank Project - you are right. There is a concerted effort to improve that area of land that gets neglected (it's not the City, not Trafalgar Square, not Covent Garden). There is a lot of work going on (we are helping with the CSR aspects of the project). The idea is to deliberately mimic the fantastic success of the Southbank regeneration
@HurstLlama
See my answer on where the government contribution is going (I don't have a view on whether the money on Temple Tube is a priority or not, but guess that TfL has decided it is).
If the primary purpose was a bridge, they could have built something simple and functional - and probably far cheaper. But they deliberately wanted something that was more than just a bridge, but was a statement about London
@JosiasJessop
Re: groups - I suspect that if three families turn up and want a picnic no one will enforce that rule. If 25 teenagers turn up, beer cans in hand, shouting and yelling it may be more strictly imposed. As often is the case, you put the rules in place and then apply discretion on implementation
And cyclists are not banned: they are just being asked to push their bikes. If they want to cycle fast they can use the bike lanes at Waterloo bridge or Blackfriars. This bridge is primarily for pedestrians. This is the comment from the guardian article that was first on google:
“If cyclists were allowed to ride, to provide a safe pedestrian environment it would be necessary to incorporate segregated cycle lanes or wider shared paths. This would result in a much reduced planted area and erode the benefits of the bridge as a green space. [They were citing an article in Building Design]
Maintenance costs are the responsibility of the Garden Bridge Trust, not the government. And they are not developers: Mervyn Davies, who chairs it, is an career politician (Labour).
I'm not against new terms entering language, provided they aren't bloody stupid.
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper
Poor Winston McKenzie. One day, he praises Nigel Farage as the messiah, and two days later, Farage fires him. pic.twitter.com/WuohIU8Ues
N.B. Not all Tories as individuals - some of the poor souls suffer from false consciousness
That said, I think people agree with working together in the abstract, when it doesn't involve their preferred party compromising, which is a necessity in such a scenario, and when that happens they grow less happy with it.
I don't buy your argument about Blackfriars & Waterloo Bridges for one minute.. I worked on Blackfriars Road for a decade and walked over the bridge most days without once thinking it was in anyway unsuitable.
Complete nonsense
Just read an interesting article entitled "The Dearth of Berths" about the slow demise of sleeper trains in western Europe due to cheap basic flights.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/12/sleeper-trains
It is a great pity, as when I have had to travel over a weekend I have often used that time to travel by train equipped with sleeper berths.
Not only does this mode of transport seem more civilised (and less time-wasting) than hanging around for hours at airports - as well as getting to them - but you see part of the country that goes by.
But best of all is to meet a whole mix of strangers at dinner, in the bar and you can be very pleasantly surprised by the person(s) who are sharing your sleeping car/couchette. but this is a family blog....!
On topic: what a laughable set of leading questions from, yes, a body which campaigns for PR.
In practice, voters seems distinctly dischuffed with coalition government, which is ironic, given how good this particular coalition has been.
I expect those who aren't too fussed about a hung parliament will post-consider their views if we actually get another one. We have been very lucky that the 2010 coalition has been so stable and responsible. (Fair play to the LibDems on that, although oddly they haven't capitalised on the constructive role they played.) I doubt if we'll be so lucky again.
This bridge is trying to do something a little different, that's all.
6 or 7?
Yet the website says it is a "vital" new route
Whereas the next bridge east of Tower Bridge is the Queen Elizabeth, and no train connection at all east of Cannon St
In yesterdays Ashcroft poll, in the Lab/Con marginals, 32% wanted a Labour government, 29% a Conservative government, compared to 10 and 12% who wanted a Con/LD or Lab/LD coalition respectively.
I also don't believe for one minute that the taxpayer's pocket won't be hurt by this, either during construction or in long-term maintenance: history has shown this time and time again. The Trust argument for long-term maintenance costs just doesn't wash with me.
There are 1,001 projects in London that are more worthy of time, consideration and money. It's a hideous boondoggle of great cost and no value.
1) The Thames east of Tower Bridge continues to take large cruise ships. Any bridge that is built would need to have very high clearance.
2) You overlook the DLR and the Overground, both of which cross the Thames east of Tower Bridge (the DLR does so in two places). The Jubilee line also crosses the Thames twice east of Tower Bridge. CrossRail is also going to cross the Thames east of Tower Bridge. The east is not being forgotten.
I really don't see the problem with having lots of bridges across the Thames in the busiest part of the town, and for a new tourist attraction that should attract many visitors with disposable income to be built for a relatively low cost. It might also make the city look rather more beautiful as well.
So it is not going to be a bridge it is going to be a statement about London? What is it going to say about London? That the people who run the place have no concerns on how the spend the taxpayers money? A statement about London, indeed - you have been spending too much time with the wrong sorts. What would grandfather say? Or Great-great-great-great ... grandfather? He wasn't the sort of chap who spent money building things to make statements about London, he just got on with building London to be the greatest city in the world.
And what, do tell us, is unsuitable for pedestrians about Waterloo Bridge? It actually provides on of the best views of London from within London and one that can't be properly enjoyed from within a vehicle or on a bicycle. To take a few minutes on a fine day to stand in the middle of Waterloo Bridge and enjoy the view (up stream or downstream) is one of the hidden treasures of London.
Can't talk about Blackfriars Bridge, though. I have never had occasion to walk over it, why would one?
Proving once again that railways are only safe under Conservative governments. ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10859968/Serco-wins-Caledonian-Sleeper-contract.html
Whilst people continue to sleep rough on the streets of London, to even consider hosing so much on a frippery such as this is outrageous. Something for those less fortunate than the obscenely wealthy donors to this folly would be a more lasting and rewarding legacy.
But this is, to a considerable extent, privately funded. (I don't really count foregone VAT as public funding as if the project didn't happen then the government wouldn't get the VAT anyway.
There may well be a case for a bridge in East London. Why don't you set up a campaign to raise money for one?
" It might also make the city look rather more beautiful as well."
Or it might just as likely be an eyesore; things with no set purpose often tend to be, as form follows function. As ever, beware architect's idealised plans (especially the ones with children holding balloons).
There may well be 1,001 better projects in London. But if private individuals want to give money to this one, who am I to say they are wrong? It's their money, after all.
I wish the new service well and hope they make money out of it. I very much doubt they will because so few people will use it. There is a reason why the sleeper services to Cornwall stopped running.
The views from Waterloo bridge are fantastic. The problem is that it is effectively a dual carriageway with additional fast bike lanes: it's harder to contemplate the views when there are buses screeching and hissing directly behind you. And it's tough to cross over on foot from east to west (especially at the Somerset House end)
* Well, a couple of hills, at least.
https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Your-journey/Night-Riviera-Sleeper
The only reason it is going ahead is because some people think it would be "kinda nice"
Wouldn't it be "kinda nicer" to give the money to a cause that saves lives rather than this unnecessary vanity project? There are also children dying of Cancer that could have a nicer final few years with that money
...and yes, Blackfriars Bridge is a road with pavement.. perfectly easy and safe for pedestrians to use to get from one side of the Thames to the other, as I know having used it over a thousand times.. what do you expect from a bridge? "herds of wilderbeest grazing majestically etc"
£30m is estimated foregone VAT and other taxes. So George isn't dipping into our pockets: all he is saying is that he won't take a chunk of money donated to a public work.
And I take the view that people can spend their money however they like. Whether you want to give it to kids with cancer or to beautifying a public space should be up to you.
It is an inescapable fact of geography that the Thames is easier to ford where it is shallower and narrower. Tower Bridge remains the largest bascule bridge in the world.
In east London, tunnels are generally going to be more practical.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. At £110 one-way it does seem very good value.
"Westminster said Transport for London must act as guarantor on the £3.5m annual maintenance costs or the project won't get built"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30301363
The way things should work:
1) Define a problem / purpose.
2) Work out several possible solutions to the problem / purpose.
3) Calculate the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.
4) If one advantage is a clear winner, and better than the status quo, then consider implementing.
5) Work out ways to enhance the project, whilst still bearing the problem in mind, and avoiding feature creep.
This project throws all of that out of the window by not actually defining a problem or purpose and replacing it with a vision. That might not be an issue, except for the fact the vision is singularly lacking and insipid.
There are also items that are decried when built - such as Bankside - which eventually become loved. This may be the case with the bridge, but it should be noted that Bankside had a purpose when built, and now.
I'm not against such things - I've mentioned the Green Bridge at Mile End as being a good example of both form and function in this kind of thing. Both form and function are lacking in this proposal.
(*) Which are somewhat spoilt by the Embankment ruining the views of the frontages of the buildings such as Somerset House, which I think once had a watergate.
If it's not too late for England to replace Capt Cook just a few weeks before next year's World Cup, perhaps Labour backbenchers might take inspiration too for their own world cup .....
The benefit being peace quiet and safety.
Cycle paths in pavements (which are quite common) are positively dangerous. Cyclists speed and are silent and seem incapable of using bells whistles or any warning device.
Cyclists anywhere are positively dangerous to pedestrians. Cycle paths in roads regularly theaten the life and limb of everybody.
Cycles have absolutly no bearing on this bridge.
"Somerset House, which I think once had a watergate"
Indeed it did and the watergate is still there (now houses a museum of the House). Of Course the Thames was much wider in those days, we have to thanks Bazalgette* for that.
* Joseph Bazalgette is one of my heroes, a fantastic engineer who essentially built London's sewer system (on which the city still depends) from start to finish in less than a decade. We could do with a few engineers like him around these days. His, largely forgotten, monument on the Embankment is a sad understatement of the debt London owes him.
Try imagining London without Docklands. It would be a poorer, more cramped place.
You are right about Heseltine and his vision though. For that he does deserve a statue.
More destructive firepower there than the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division
I feared that Cook will go the same way as the last Essex lad who had captained England at the Coupe du Monde
I find your protests absurd. Are people to be marched dragooned from point to point? Is there to be no time space room for rest and reflection? Its alreqady been pointed out that the middle of the rive makes an excellent viewpoint.
More importantly is that part of London that is a machine for tourism to be restricted to red buses, underground tubes and people made of wax?
Guesstimate is what Osborne does with finances!
Estimate suggests you have some concept of what the answer might be.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London
Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
Iain Dale retweeted
Tom D'Arcy@TomGJDArcy·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@LBC @UKIP via.@hattmarris84 Kerry Smith tells @IainDale: 'This is a witch hunt against the working class'....
Just saying.
Thanks. I find wasting £175 million on this scheme sick, especially when much of the money is coming from the public, and the public will be left paying for it long-term.
"Its alreqady been pointed out that the middle of the rive makes an excellent viewpoint."
Only to the bridges a few hundred yards up- and downstream.
The London Eye had a purpose, cost £100 million less, and was a paid-for attraction. This 'bridge' has no purpose outside wishy-washy sham-talk. It's insane.
London deserves better.
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30546517
Are labourites who have marched through the institutions getting so fed up with Red Ed that they feel they have to do his job for him?
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11303724/Labour-needs-to-spend-the-next-five-months-shouting-one-word-cuts.html
Given your love of #vatmess, I thought you should read about one of my companies experiences
http://blog.pythonanywhere.com/105/
Farage really has hit on a winner by repeatedly trolling the politically correct who sucsessfully cowed anyone in the public eye into not saying things that they don't like for so long. They do not like it up 'em Mr Jones.
Who was it yesterday here who thought UKIP would struggle to maintain publicity in the coming months lol. Guardianistas and their latter day tory fellow travellers are the gift that keeps on giving.
It is glorious to watch. This country would be a lot heathier if the left stopped trying to oppose free speech and we enshrined "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" into law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Newlands
Mr. 1000, thanks but I've read that already [linked to by someone else earlier today].