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.
Comments
-
Nom nom nnoom nomnomnomnommm0
-
And second
0 -
That coalition mug must be quite the collectors' piece now.0
-
Massive cognitive dissonance there. People say they want agreement and cross-party, campfire-sitting, kumbayah-singing politics, but when they got that they bleated about the Lib Dems dropping the unrealistic tuition fees policy.
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.0 -
I'm happy for a coalition - as long as it is the right sort of coalition, e.g. Labour + Green +Farronite LD.
Well, any cobbled together deal that would keep the Conservatives out of power wouldn't be too bad, really.0 -
"New polling suggests that voters are becoming more comfortable with multi party government"
Just as well if the polls are to be believed.0 -
When will we learn? Never in the case of pb thread headers.
Polling at the moment is a complete waste of space.
Come back later in January.0 -
But has the present Coalition delivered what was best for the Uk and what was required in 2010 to get things back towards an even keel?
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.0 -
Please explain the reasons why for your preference?SandyRentool said:I'm happy for a coalition - as long as it is the right sort of coalition, e.g. Labour + Green +Farronite LD.
Well, any cobbled together deal that would keep the Conservatives out of power wouldn't be too bad, really.0 -
78% believe the Opposition should work with the government on issues they agree on
Grand coalition anyone?54% believe Parliament works best when no party is too dominant so that cross-party agreement is needed to pass laws
Leading question anyone?
0 -
Mr. Antifrank, not only leading but... cold-reading? I forget the precise term. It's using language to slip in a subjective position as if it's factual or objective:
"too dominant" - too dominant is, by definition bad. Too much of anything is bad.0 -
FPT: Mr. M, Farage is entirely wrong. 'Pre-prepared' is a bloody ridiculous term and those using it should be thrashed around the head and neck with a large fish.
... 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.0 -
Too many cats? Or too much plonk?
Golly. This isn't a universe I recognise!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, not only leading but... cold-reading? I forget the precise term. It's using language to slip in a subjective position as if it's factual or objective:
"too dominant" - too dominant is, by definition bad. Too much of anything is bad.0 -
Someone used the expression pre-considered to me the other day.
WTF? How can you pre-consider something? Either you are or you aren't.Morris_Dancer said:FPT: Mr. M, Farage is entirely wrong. 'Pre-prepared' is a bloody ridiculous term and those using it should be thrashed around the head and neck with a large fish.
... 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.0 -
FTP re the Bridge
(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).0 -
Miss Plato, I hope you gave them a verbal lashing.
I'm not against new terms entering language, provided they aren't bloody stupid.0 -
And here's Winston
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/WuohIU8Ues0 -
I'm a greeny-red who came up with the phrase "Farronite 451" and has a visceral hatred of the Tory Party!Financier said:
Please explain the reasons why for your preference?SandyRentool said:I'm happy for a coalition - as long as it is the right sort of coalition, e.g. Labour + Green +Farronite LD.
Well, any cobbled together deal that would keep the Conservatives out of power wouldn't be too bad, really.
N.B. Not all Tories as individuals - some of the poor souls suffer from false consciousness0 -
@OliverCooper: Poor Winston McKenzie. One day, he praises Nigel Farage as the messiah, and two days later, Farage fires him. http://t.co/WuohIU8Ues0
-
Whether people like coalitions or not, if they elected another hung parliament they are tacitly accepting that or similar arrangement as a possibility.
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.0 -
Well put, Mr. kle4. Is the same way people want fair taxes, where fair = people who earn more than me paying more.0
-
Scottish Survation poll will be out on Monday. They've said that figures will NOT be published before then.0
-
Totally OT
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....!0 -
Oh, I don't know. Most people seem to post-consider.Plato said:Someone used the expression pre-considered to me the other day.
WTF? How can you pre-consider something?
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.0 -
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
This bridge is trying to do something a little different, that's all.0 -
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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 St0 -
Most of them questions are idealistic and don't really apply to UK politics or what could happen next year. I believe a right wing coalition would horrify a large section of the public, with any combination involving the Conservatives, DUP and UKIP being just as bad to anti-Tories as a Conservative majority. The same applies to a lefty coalition involving Labour, Plaid Cymru and the SNP.
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.0 -
This bridge isn't being designed for pedestrians either, at least if they dare to be in groups of more than eight, or for someone walking back from the office late, or when they're holding a private function. And cyclists are forbidden (asking them to push their bikes is essentially forbidding them). Remember, this is from a capital city that's supposed to be cycling-mad.Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
This bridge is trying to do something a little different, that's all.
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.0 -
isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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.0 -
@Charles
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?0 -
Britain, as ever, is bucking the trend. The Scottish sleeper trains, which were under almost annual threat of being axed during Labour's time in power, are to get a band-spanking new fleet of carriages at a cost of £100 million. Now if only the Cornwall/Devon sleepers were to get the same ...Financier said:Totally OT
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....!
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.html0 -
It's a total waste of money, that should be spent elsewhere and on something more productive and worthwhile.Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
This bridge is trying to do something a little different, that's all.
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.0 -
You pre-consider, then you consider, then you reconsider, and realise you hadn't pre-considered enough.0
-
Of course the website trying to raise money says it's "vital". They're hardly likely to say "it'd be kinda nice".isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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?0 -
For a pedestrian, the only crossing points are the two foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich, and (in a way) the Greenwich Air Line, for however long that lasts. Or do pedestrians and cyclists not matter, especially if they are unlucky enough to live in the east of the city?antifrank said:isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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.
" 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).0 -
It is designed for pedestrians who want somewhere to spend time and contemplate. It's for wandering and thinking, not specifically for people who are trying to get from A to B.JosiasJessop said:
This bridge isn't being designed for pedestrians either, at least if they dare to be in groups of more than eight, or for someone walking back from the office late, or when they're holding a private function. And cyclists are forbidden (asking them to push their bikes is essentially forbidding them). Remember, this is from a capital city that's supposed to be cycling-mad.Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
This bridge is trying to do something a little different, that's all.
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.
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.0 -
Mr. Charles, £60m of it isn't 'their' money. It's taxpayers'.0
-
It's almost as if the Thames gets wider and more difficult to ford the closer that it gets to the sea. Well, who would have guessed that?JosiasJessop said:
For a pedestrian, the only crossing points are the two foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich, and (in a way) the Greenwich Air Line, for however long that lasts. Or do pedestrians and cyclists not matter, especially if they are unlucky enough to live in the east of the city?antifrank said:isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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.
" 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).0 -
I agree. Its sad to see all the usual PB Misery guts in full flow.Charles said:
It is designed for pedestrians who want somewhere to spend time and contemplate. It's for wandering and thinking, not specifically for people who are trying to get from A to B.JosiasJessop said:
This bridge isn't being designed for pedestrians either, at least if they dare to be in groups of more than eight, or for someone walking back from the office late, or when they're holding a private function. And cyclists are forbidden (asking them to push their bikes is essentially forbidding them). Remember, this is from a capital city that's supposed to be cycling-mad.Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
This bridge is trying to do something a little different, that's all.
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.
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.0 -
I did the Glasgow sleeper - once. A horrid and very expensive (I went so called first-class) experience. After that I always went by aeroplane, which was cheaper, nicer and door-to-door much quicker.JosiasJessop said:
Britain, as ever, is bucking the trend. The Scottish sleeper trains, which were under almost annual threat of being axed during Labour's time in power, are to get a band-spanking new fleet of carriages at a cost of £100 million. Now if only the Cornwall/Devon sleepers were to get the same ...Financier said:Totally OT
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....!
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
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.0 -
My great-great-great... grandfather moved mountains to improve the view. (Literally!*) And they consistently invested in London as part of making it the greatest city on earth - if this does attract tourists to the Northbank then that will do wonders for a neglected part of town.HurstLlama said:@Charles
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?
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.0 -
They haven't stopped running:HurstLlama said:
I did the Glasgow sleeper - once. A horrid and very expensive (I went so called first-class) experience. After that I always went by aeroplane, which was cheaper, nicer and door-to-door much quicker.JosiasJessop said:
Britain, as ever, is bucking the trend. The Scottish sleeper trains, which were under almost annual threat of being axed during Labour's time in power, are to get a band-spanking new fleet of carriages at a cost of £100 million. Now if only the Cornwall/Devon sleepers were to get the same ...Financier said:Totally OT
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....!
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
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.
https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Your-journey/Night-Riviera-Sleeper0 -
You said it isn't a primarily a bridge..Charles said:
Of course the website trying to raise money says it's "vital". They're hardly likely to say "it'd be kinda nice".isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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?
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"
0 -
Personally, I'd agree. That's why I haven't given it any money (although I may buy a brick when they get round to selling those). If an individual wants to donate £10m to something they should be entitled to spend their money how they want.TheWatcher said:
It's a total waste of money, that should be spent elsewhere and on something more productive and worthwhile.Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
This bridge is trying to do something a little different, that's all.
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.0 -
Of course parties should work together in the national interest. In particular they should all agree with Tory policies:)0
-
Lots of pontification this evening...0
-
£30m is being spent by TfL on redeveloping Temple Tube station. I've no idea whether that is the best use of £30m, but assume that they have considered it and decided it is.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Charles, £60m of it isn't 'their' money. It's taxpayers'.
£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.0 -
I don't over look the DLR/Overground, but if you think that's all that's needed, why have the bridges in central London? The tube goes underneath the Thames there too, and trains go over the existing bridgesantifrank said:isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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.0 -
The problem is one of perspective: I see this as a park/public space that happens to cross a river. You see it as primarily a functional bridge.isam said:
You said it isn't a primarily a bridge..Charles said:
Of course the website trying to raise money says it's "vital". They're hardly likely to say "it'd be kinda nice".isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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?
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"
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.0 -
I have no doubt that east London could benefit from more links across the Thames. But you said that there were no train connections at all east of Cannon Street, which is incorrect.isam said:
I don't over look the DLR/Overground, but if you think that's all that's needed, why have the bridges in central London? The tube goes underneath the Thames there too, and trains go over the existing bridgesantifrank said:isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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.
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.0 -
You enjoy the view of London but decry the people who built it and sneer at the people who want to add to itHurstLlama said:@Charles
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?0 -
Goodness gracious, Mr. Jessop. I was sure the West Country sleeper service had expired. I can remember its closure being discussed and a campaign to keep it, which I thought had failed.JosiasJessop said:
They haven't stopped running:HurstLlama said:
I did the Glasgow sleeper - once. A horrid and very expensive (I went so called first-class) experience. After that I always went by aeroplane, which was cheaper, nicer and door-to-door much quicker.JosiasJessop said:
Britain, as ever, is bucking the trend. The Scottish sleeper trains, which were under almost annual threat of being axed during Labour's time in power, are to get a band-spanking new fleet of carriages at a cost of £100 million. Now if only the Cornwall/Devon sleepers were to get the same ...Financier said:Totally OT
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....!
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
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.
https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Your-journey/Night-Riviera-Sleeper
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. At £110 one-way it does seem very good value.0 -
Public money is underwriting the upkeepCharles said:
The problem is one of perspective: I see this as a park/public space that happens to cross a river. You see it as primarily a functional bridge.isam said:
You said it isn't a primarily a bridge..Charles said:
Of course the website trying to raise money says it's "vital". They're hardly likely to say "it'd be kinda nice".isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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?
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"
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.
"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-303013630 -
Not necessarily so. From a quick measure it is 800-900 feet wide at Temple, and 800 feet wide at Limehouse, which is three miles downstream. It only starts widening to a third of a mile or more past North Greenwich.antifrank said:
It's almost as if the Thames gets wider and more difficult to ford the closer that it gets to the sea. Well, who would have guessed that?
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.0 -
antifrank said:
It wasn't incorrect to say there was no train connection east of Cannon St, as I was talking about bridges. I am aware of the tube and Rotherhithe/Blackwall Tunnelsisam said:
I have no doubt that east London could benefit from more links across the Thames. But you said that there were no train connections at all east of Cannon Street, which is incorrect.antifrank said:
I don't over look the DLR/Overground, but if you think that's all that's needed, why have the bridges in central London? The tube goes underneath the Thames there too, and trains go over the existing bridgesisam said:Charles said:
Whereas the next bridge east of Tower Bridge is the Queen Elizabeth, and no train connection at all east of Cannon Stisam said:@Charles
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
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.
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.
Biased towards my neck of the woods but it seems to me a nonsense that to get to Kent from Essex, or vice versa if you don't drive you have to commute into London, cross a bridge or get the tube, then get a train back again, when as the crow flies its about two miles if that.
A public underpass for pedestrians or cyclists from Rainham to Erith would be much more practical than the Garden Bridge0 -
Alastair Cook sacked as one day captain and replaced by Eoin Morgan0
-
You're quite a twerp considering all the disaster bigotry and misery inflicted by the Labour party.SandyRentool said:
I'm a greeny-red who came up with the phrase "Farronite 451" and has a visceral hatred of the Tory Party!Financier said:
Please explain the reasons why for your preference?SandyRentool said:I'm happy for a coalition - as long as it is the right sort of coalition, e.g. Labour + Green +Farronite LD.
Well, any cobbled together deal that would keep the Conservatives out of power wouldn't be too bad, really.
N.B. Not all Tories as individuals - some of the poor souls suffer from false consciousness0 -
No, I don't. Try again.Flightpath said:
You enjoy the view of London but decry the people who built it and sneer at the people who want to add to itHurstLlama said:@Charles
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?0 -
That view has evolved over the years. Many things have been built, found to be either aesthetically or practically lacking, and demolished within half a century or so. Leave this for a few hundred years, and you get the present views (*). The idea that something plonked onto that skyline with no view to purpose or place will automatically improve the view is ridiculous.Flightpath said:
You enjoy the view of London but decry the people who built it and sneer at the people who want to add to itHurstLlama said:@Charles
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?
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.0 -
TBH, don't see that as likely to bring much, if any, improvement.TheScreamingEagles said:Alastair Cook sacked as one day captain and replaced by Eoin Morgan
0 -
Terrible news for Ed M....
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 .....0 -
Charles quotes the following comment... ''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.''
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.0 -
On *this* bridge, yes. Which is why *this* bridge is the wrong bridge.Flightpath said:Charles quotes the following comment... ''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.''
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.0 -
@Jossias Jessop
"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.0 -
See also loathsome term 'guesstimate'.Morris_Dancer said:FPT: Mr. M, Farage is entirely wrong. 'Pre-prepared' is a bloody ridiculous term and those using it should be thrashed around the head and neck with a large fish.
... 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.
0 -
The Millennium Bridge?antifrank said:
It's almost as if the Thames gets wider and more difficult to ford the closer that it gets to the sea. Well, who would have guessed that?JosiasJessop said:
For a pedestrian, the only crossing points are the two foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich, and (in a way) the Greenwich Air Line, for however long that lasts. Or do pedestrians and cyclists not matter, especially if they are unlucky enough to live in the east of the city?antifrank said:isam said:
How many bridges are there connecting North and South London within a mile of this ridiculous idea?Charles said:
Blackfriars is better than Waterloo, but they weren't designed for pedestrians: they are entirely functional road bridges that happen to have a pavement alongside.isam said:@Charles
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
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
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.
" 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).0 -
What else can you do with sticky-back plastic?Luckyguy1983 said:
See also loathsome term 'guesstimate'.Morris_Dancer said:FPT: Mr. M, Farage is entirely wrong. 'Pre-prepared' is a bloody ridiculous term and those using it should be thrashed around the head and neck with a large fish.
... 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.0 -
Yep. And in a similar manner (albeit controversially), Heseltine should have a statue for the way he almost single-handedly saved London by starting the LDDC in 1980, thus allowing the redevelopment of Docklands.HurstLlama said:@Jossias Jessop
"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.0 -
I can see it being something good to see whilst in London. I certainly don't see it as a reason to visit London, especially not to inbound overseas visitors. As such, it can only take away money and time from other visitor attractions in the City.Charles said:
My great-great-great... grandfather moved mountains to improve the view. (Literally!*) And they consistently invested in London as part of making it the greatest city on earth - if this does attract tourists to the Northbank then that will do wonders for a neglected part of town.HurstLlama said:@Charles
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?
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.
0 -
Well, yes and there again no. I find Docklands best as a place to be admired from afar. From the river or the South bank near Greenwich it looks amazing. Once I am in it I hate the place as a soulless dump. The nicest thing is that it won't last in its present form, they will start tearing down the older bits fairly soon and hopefully this time remember the people that have to live and work there.JosiasJessop said:
Yep. And in a similar manner (albeit controversially), Heseltine should have a statue for the way he almost single-handedly saved London by starting the LDDC in 1980, thus allowing the redevelopment of Docklands.HurstLlama said:@Jossias Jessop
"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.0 -
Estimate. Estimate already means you don't know the answer.
What else can you do with sticky-back plastic?Luckyguy1983 said:
See also loathsome term 'guesstimate'.Morris_Dancer said:FPT: Mr. M, Farage is entirely wrong. 'Pre-prepared' is a bloody ridiculous term and those using it should be thrashed around the head and neck with a large fish.
... 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.
0 -
Ali, Hales, Taylor, Ballance, Root, Morgan and Buttler makes for a decent line up.OldKingCole said:
TBH, don't see that as likely to bring much, if any, improvement.TheScreamingEagles said:Alastair Cook sacked as one day captain and replaced by Eoin Morgan
More destructive firepower there than the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division0 -
On topic: well that's lucky!0
-
But huzzah for an Irishman leading us at the World Cup.
I feared that Cook will go the same way as the last Essex lad who had captained England at the Coupe du Monde0 -
On topic Nick Clegg could be the only constant in government this decade.0
-
But that is the point of this bridge, to be for pedestrians. For the enjoyment of pedestrians. What is the point of the London Eye? What is the point of any public resource?JosiasJessop said:
On *this* bridge, yes. Which is why *this* bridge is the wrong bridge.Flightpath said:...
Cycles have absolutly no bearing on this bridge.
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?0 -
Estimate. Estimate already means you don't know the answer.Luckyguy1983 said:
What else can you do with sticky-back plastic?Luckyguy1983 said:
See also loathsome term 'guesstimate'.Morris_Dancer said:FPT: Mr. M, Farage is entirely wrong. 'Pre-prepared' is a bloody ridiculous term and those using it should be thrashed around the head and neck with a large fish.
... 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.
Guesstimate is what Osborne does with finances!
Estimate suggests you have some concept of what the answer might be.0 -
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
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'....
0 -
That would be hilarious. Even more so would be the LDs losing seats in 2020 too and still having the balance of power, and stays on as DPM til 2025.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic Nick Clegg could be the only constant in government this decade.
0 -
For myself I think the function is not lacking and indeed is the easiest thing to characterise. Form is a different matter and esthetics are different for differnet people. As currently drawn i do not have a problem with it and could see me making use of it. Especially if anyone ran a pub at either end.JosiasJessop said:
Both form and function are lacking in this proposal.Flightpath said:
You enjoy the view of London but decry the people who built it and sneer at the people who want to add to itHurstLlama said:@Charles
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?
0 -
I'm on painkillers since this week and I'm Mister Northern Working ClassScrapheap_as_was said:Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
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.0 -
That looks great. Just watch someone ruin it by putting bloody Bopara in there somewhere.TheScreamingEagles said:
Ali, Hales, Taylor, Ballance, Root, Morgan and Buttler makes for a decent line up.OldKingCole said:
TBH, don't see that as likely to bring much, if any, improvement.TheScreamingEagles said:Alastair Cook sacked as one day captain and replaced by Eoin Morgan
More destructive firepower there than the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division0 -
"I find your protests absurd."Flightpath said:
But that is the point of this bridge, to be for pedestrians. For the enjoyment of pedestrians. What is the point of the London Eye? What is the point of any public resource?JosiasJessop said:
On *this* bridge, yes. Which is why *this* bridge is the wrong bridge.Flightpath said:...
Cycles have absolutly no bearing on this bridge.
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?
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.0 -
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class peopleScrapheap_as_was said:Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
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'....
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital0 -
Not remotely party political:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-305465170 -
The function is lacking: even the pedestrian functionality is limited by the rules they are putting in place (no groups of more than eight people, FFS). Add in the extreme cost of construction and maintenance, and it is obscene.Flightpath said:
For myself I think the function is not lacking and indeed is the easiest thing to characterise. Form is a different matter and esthetics are different for differnet people. As currently drawn i do not have a problem with it and could see me making use of it. Especially if anyone ran a pub at either end.JosiasJessop said:
Both form and function are lacking in this proposal.Flightpath said:
You enjoy the view of London but decry the people who built it and sneer at the people who want to add to itHurstLlama said:@Charles
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?0 -
I thought it was a Labour Poster, especially as "The Perfect Storm" is in bold red letters.Morris_Dancer said:Not remotely party political:
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?0 -
indeed.isam said:
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class peopleScrapheap_as_was said:Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
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'....
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,0 -
Dan Hodges thinks the best strategy for Labour is to go full-on anti-austerity:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11303724/Labour-needs-to-spend-the-next-five-months-shouting-one-word-cuts.html0 -
Why is it acceptable for big businesses to be overtly party-political, but not charities?Morris_Dancer said:Not remotely party political:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-305465170 -
Mr. Beds, that was my assumption as well. Oxfam are taking the piss.0
-
@Morris_Dancer
Given your love of #vatmess, I thought you should read about one of my companies experiences
http://blog.pythonanywhere.com/105/0 -
And again the islington classes will foam at the mouth and again UKIP will get more publicity and more votes.Scrapheap_as_was said:Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
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'....
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.0 -
Of course, as in almost everything of note, Liverpool got there before London.HurstLlama said:@Jossias Jessop
"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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Newlands0 -
About the only consistent performer and you don't want him playing.GeoffM said:
That looks great. Just watch someone ruin it by putting bloody Bopara in there somewhere.TheScreamingEagles said:
Ali, Hales, Taylor, Ballance, Root, Morgan and Buttler makes for a decent line up.OldKingCole said:
TBH, don't see that as likely to bring much, if any, improvement.TheScreamingEagles said:Alastair Cook sacked as one day captain and replaced by Eoin Morgan
More destructive firepower there than the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division0 -
I fear you would say much the same about the Albert Hall, Albert Bridge and even St Pauls Cathedral if it was built nowJosiasJessop said:
"I find your protests absurd."Flightpath said:
But that is the point of this bridge, to be for pedestrians. For the enjoyment of pedestrians. What is the point of the London Eye? What is the point of any public resource?JosiasJessop said:
On *this* bridge, yes. Which is why *this* bridge is the wrong bridge.Flightpath said:...
Cycles have absolutly no bearing on this bridge.
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?
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.0 -
Mr. 565, charities receive tax breaks and often outright donations from the state. They must not be involved in party political campaigning.
Mr. 1000, thanks but I've read that already [linked to by someone else earlier today].0 -
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourselfScrapheap_as_was said:
indeed.isam said:
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class peopleScrapheap_as_was said:Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
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'....
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,0
