4 ms·

I read an article[0] just this morning (dated yesterday), that due to reduced seats on HS2, passengers may need to be "encouraged" to NOT travel by train at cer

I read an article[0] just this morning (dated yesterday), that due to reduced seats on HS2, passengers may need to be "encouraged" to NOT travel by train at certain times "if at all". With the war on drivers, and years of trying to convince us to travel by train, despite ludicrous prices and appalling service, they're now going to tell us _not_ to travel by train? Complete and utter insanity, I mean seriously, the plot has thoroughly been lost. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go

inglor_cz 2y ago
[flagged]
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants, and to use them as a political pawn for electioneering and personal gain. Ship ‘em in, simultaneously cut services, policing, remove initiatives aimed to aid integration, and all the while loot the country while blaming the “swarm” - or was it “tidal wave”? I forget. “Stop the boats!”, they howl, while opening the floodgates. I mean, net immigration absolutely soared under the Tories, while they incessantly railed against immigration in the media - it’s hard to see any other explanation.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    "It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants" That sort-of violates the principle that you don't attribute to malice what can be explained by plain incompetence. People who really dislike immigrants won't vote Tory anyway, Reform UK is there to catch their vote (and sink the Tories in the process of doing so). Most of the immigration influx is legal anyway, not boat travellers.
    - grues-dinner 2y ago
      [dead]
    - p_l 2y ago
      You're assuming that it's malice, when it can be interpreted as incompetence. Incompetence in not figuring out the long term consequences of campaign-time actions. So you campaign with hatred against immigrants because it's cheap. You campaign about how they use the dimnishing services. You campaing on cutting benefits to pander to "fiscal conservatives" and business that would like lower costs. You open immigration to pander to business wanting cheaper workforce. In isolation, with exception of first, none of them are much about malice and all can seem logical for the "goal of winning is the most important thing". Even the first is more malice from pandering to whatever emotion gets you direct results, without necessarily thinking anything about actually being malicious towards immigrants. Taken as a whole, looking at the whole system, it's a clusterfuck.
      - sdkdfjdlkdsj 2y ago
        [flagged]
andrepd 2y ago
>war on drivers I guess it's true what they say: for those accustomed to privilege, equality is aggression.
- alias_neo 2y ago
  Nice attack there, if a little ignorant. The only people being forced of the road are the under-privileged, those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ, those who can't afford maintenance with poor roads, skyrocketing insurance, high fuel prices, ever increasing taxes, unfair parking charges for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago, and those who rely on them for their work or trade. The only people who _won't_ be forced off of the road, are the privileged. We'll all by walking and cycling around outside of London where the infrastructure continues to suffer after all of the public funds have been pocketed by the privileged for improved transport that was never delivered, while the roads are lined with processions of Chelsea tractors ignoring 20mph limits.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    >>those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions? ULEZ only requires your car to be Euro 4 compliant for petrol cars, and Euro 6 for diesels. Most(if not all) petrol cars that are younger than 20 years old are Euro 4 compliant, and any diesel made in the last 10 years should be Euro 6 compliant too. You are making it sound like you have to buy an EV to be ULEZ compliant, which is absolutely not true. >>for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you can only improve on them. And ULEZ is one of the best decisions made anywhere in this country, its impact on pollution within London is undeniable, I wish every single city in the UK had a ULEZ zone. >> and those who rely on them for their work or trade. Funny, but this exact same argument was being used when leaded petrol was being phased out. And yet I can't imagine anyone would look back at that time and say it was a mistake to get rid of it. >>skyrocketing insurance That is one thing I 100% agree with you on - insurance industry is just a giant cartel right now, and they keep charging more and more despite skyrocketing profits. Their own numbers about increased cost of repairs doesn't line up with the increases in premiums across the board, it's all a scam. >> high fuel prices Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if the price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank inflation for that one.
bmoxb 2y ago
There was never a 'war on drivers' - just empty rhetoric that Sunak clung on to after the Uxbridge by-election.
- alias_neo 2y ago
  You just have to look at the state of transport for those outside of London, even within the M25 to see this has nothing to do with rhetoric. Sure "war on drivers" may be the wrong phrase, but there is nothing being done to encourage those who are not privileged, or live in London where transport is excellent, to use alternative means. ULEZ, high insurance, fuel, tax, neglect of infrastructure, unfair parking charges for old/non-electric vehicles, etc, for those who can't afford electric vehicles or for whom they're not practical, who have older vehicles because that's what their budget allows for, and who require them for their trade, or because they have to travel further to find work, those for whom it's cheaper to drive than pay exorbitant rail fairs, at the cost of their time due to greedy rail providers with poor services, I'm sure for them it can feel like a war against them. It's easy for those who live in London, or are able to cycle or walk everywhere they want/need to say; I lived in London for ten years and never needed to own a car; but for those out in the rest of the country, who have a family, have a disability, work in different locations day to day, or a plethora other reasons, that's just not reality.
  - harry_ord 2y ago
    What you're describing isn't a war on drivers just poor infrastructure and bad decisions. For all these issues no alternatives have been made no ones benefiting.
    - alias_neo 2y ago
      I've already pointed out that may have been the wrong phrase, but, I'm not suggesting anyone's winning, but plenty are losing by stupid decisions consistently being made, that disproportionately affect the under-privileged. I'm not talking about drivers vs cyclists, or whatever, I'm talking about people who _need_ to drive for their livelihood; it shouldn't be reserved for those of us who can afford the annual insurance increases, nice new or electric cars and what-not, UNLESS something is being done to replace the need to drive, and it just isn't. I'm not pro-driving and drivers, I'm pro not making stupid moves from a position of privilege while others are left in the dirt. "War on drivers" was just the catch-phrase that came to mind, and I failed to elaborate my point, that was my mistake, but it seems everyone has latched onto those three words and missed the forest for the trees, or just made some other assumption like I'm hating on cyclists or something that is sometimes associated with that phrase.
gambiting 2y ago
>>With the war on drivers The government literally allocated tens of billions for drivers(including 8.3 billion taken from HS2 funding directly), and zero for cycling or other infrastructure. The whole idea of "war on drivers" is complete and utter nonsense - I'd actually risk saying that no group of people anywhere in this country is as well looked after and invested into as drivers. And ironically, HS2 would have improved driving conditions in this country, because currently our rail system is at a capacity - so bulk non perishable goods are going by road instead of shipped by train - it's completely insane. It increases congestion as well as damages our roads further - but of course media presented it as some lavish extravagance to decrease travel time from manchester by 8 minutes, which it absolutely isn't about.

inglor_cz 2y ago

[flagged]

madaxe_again 2y ago
It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants, and to use them as a political pawn for electioneering and personal gain. Ship ‘em in, simultaneously cut services, policing, remove initiatives aimed to aid integration, and all the while loot the country while blaming the “swarm” - or was it “tidal wave”? I forget. “Stop the boats!”, they howl, while opening the floodgates. I mean, net immigration absolutely soared under the Tories, while they incessantly railed against immigration in the media - it’s hard to see any other explanation.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants" That sort-of violates the principle that you don't attribute to malice what can be explained by plain incompetence. People who really dislike immigrants won't vote Tory anyway, Reform UK is there to catch their vote (and sink the Tories in the process of doing so). Most of the immigration influx is legal anyway, not boat travellers.
  - grues-dinner 2y ago
    [dead]
  - p_l 2y ago
    You're assuming that it's malice, when it can be interpreted as incompetence. Incompetence in not figuring out the long term consequences of campaign-time actions. So you campaign with hatred against immigrants because it's cheap. You campaign about how they use the dimnishing services. You campaing on cutting benefits to pander to "fiscal conservatives" and business that would like lower costs. You open immigration to pander to business wanting cheaper workforce. In isolation, with exception of first, none of them are much about malice and all can seem logical for the "goal of winning is the most important thing". Even the first is more malice from pandering to whatever emotion gets you direct results, without necessarily thinking anything about actually being malicious towards immigrants. Taken as a whole, looking at the whole system, it's a clusterfuck.
    - sdkdfjdlkdsj 2y ago
      [flagged]

andrepd 2y ago

>war on drivers I guess it's true what they say: for those accustomed to privilege, equality is aggression.

alias_neo 2y ago
Nice attack there, if a little ignorant. The only people being forced of the road are the under-privileged, those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ, those who can't afford maintenance with poor roads, skyrocketing insurance, high fuel prices, ever increasing taxes, unfair parking charges for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago, and those who rely on them for their work or trade. The only people who _won't_ be forced off of the road, are the privileged. We'll all by walking and cycling around outside of London where the infrastructure continues to suffer after all of the public funds have been pocketed by the privileged for improved transport that was never delivered, while the roads are lined with processions of Chelsea tractors ignoring 20mph limits.
- gambiting 2y ago
  >>those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions? ULEZ only requires your car to be Euro 4 compliant for petrol cars, and Euro 6 for diesels. Most(if not all) petrol cars that are younger than 20 years old are Euro 4 compliant, and any diesel made in the last 10 years should be Euro 6 compliant too. You are making it sound like you have to buy an EV to be ULEZ compliant, which is absolutely not true. >>for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you can only improve on them. And ULEZ is one of the best decisions made anywhere in this country, its impact on pollution within London is undeniable, I wish every single city in the UK had a ULEZ zone. >> and those who rely on them for their work or trade. Funny, but this exact same argument was being used when leaded petrol was being phased out. And yet I can't imagine anyone would look back at that time and say it was a mistake to get rid of it. >>skyrocketing insurance That is one thing I 100% agree with you on - insurance industry is just a giant cartel right now, and they keep charging more and more despite skyrocketing profits. Their own numbers about increased cost of repairs doesn't line up with the increases in premiums across the board, it's all a scam. >> high fuel prices Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if the price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank inflation for that one.

bmoxb 2y ago

There was never a 'war on drivers' - just empty rhetoric that Sunak clung on to after the Uxbridge by-election.

alias_neo 2y ago
You just have to look at the state of transport for those outside of London, even within the M25 to see this has nothing to do with rhetoric. Sure "war on drivers" may be the wrong phrase, but there is nothing being done to encourage those who are not privileged, or live in London where transport is excellent, to use alternative means. ULEZ, high insurance, fuel, tax, neglect of infrastructure, unfair parking charges for old/non-electric vehicles, etc, for those who can't afford electric vehicles or for whom they're not practical, who have older vehicles because that's what their budget allows for, and who require them for their trade, or because they have to travel further to find work, those for whom it's cheaper to drive than pay exorbitant rail fairs, at the cost of their time due to greedy rail providers with poor services, I'm sure for them it can feel like a war against them. It's easy for those who live in London, or are able to cycle or walk everywhere they want/need to say; I lived in London for ten years and never needed to own a car; but for those out in the rest of the country, who have a family, have a disability, work in different locations day to day, or a plethora other reasons, that's just not reality.
- harry_ord 2y ago
  What you're describing isn't a war on drivers just poor infrastructure and bad decisions. For all these issues no alternatives have been made no ones benefiting.
  - alias_neo 2y ago
    I've already pointed out that may have been the wrong phrase, but, I'm not suggesting anyone's winning, but plenty are losing by stupid decisions consistently being made, that disproportionately affect the under-privileged. I'm not talking about drivers vs cyclists, or whatever, I'm talking about people who _need_ to drive for their livelihood; it shouldn't be reserved for those of us who can afford the annual insurance increases, nice new or electric cars and what-not, UNLESS something is being done to replace the need to drive, and it just isn't. I'm not pro-driving and drivers, I'm pro not making stupid moves from a position of privilege while others are left in the dirt. "War on drivers" was just the catch-phrase that came to mind, and I failed to elaborate my point, that was my mistake, but it seems everyone has latched onto those three words and missed the forest for the trees, or just made some other assumption like I'm hating on cyclists or something that is sometimes associated with that phrase.

gambiting 2y ago

>>With the war on drivers The government literally allocated tens of billions for drivers(including 8.3 billion taken from HS2 funding directly), and zero for cycling or other infrastructure. The whole idea of "war on drivers" is complete and utter nonsense - I'd actually risk saying that no group of people anywhere in this country is as well looked after and invested into as drivers. And ironically, HS2 would have improved driving conditions in this country, because currently our rail system is at a capacity - so bulk non perishable goods are going by road instead of shipped by train - it's completely insane. It increases congestion as well as damages our roads further - but of course media presented it as some lavish extravagance to decrease travel time from manchester by 8 minutes, which it absolutely isn't about.