Cycling UK Forum

from a cyclists POV what do you think a new goverment will do for us?

They will increase the number of cyclists on the road, through the means of poverty.

Nowt.
Nothing ever changes for the better as far as cycling is concerned. Sorry for being pessimistic.

As for other things, maybe we won't be so well off as money is going to be tight. 'twas ever thus, of course, but can we cast our memories back to the 1970s? Three Day Week, power cuts, food shortages; docks, mines, steel workers, car workers all on strike. Inflation in double figures too.

We've never had it so good as we have now.

According to their transport policy:

We will also:

Give the concerns of cyclists greater priority;

Some might say it's a little vague, but then to be fair I'm not sure most cyclists are sure what their concerns are...

The problem is of course the majority of cyclists don't inhabit these forums, they're most likely Sunday cyclists, tootling down the road to the park with the kids in tow and will want more and better cycle paths and facilities.

Not sure what they can do for me. What I'd like though is the ability to issue tickets and driving bans, failing that the right to mount anti tank missiles to my bike.
I'd also like to see the engines disabled and pedals fitted to the cars of anyone whom I issue a ban too.

I don't think 'the new government', whoever they may eventually turn out to be, will be in power long enough to do anything for anyone. My expectation is that we will have another general election before the end of the year.

Whoever gets the job of making decisions I intend to lobby like mad for bike storage on trains. With that I can afford to be rid of my car. But I doubt that cycling will be anywhere on the new government's priority list.

byegad wrote: ........ My expectation is that we will have another general election before the end of the year.

Or even before the end of the month?
Yes please.
This one has been a joke.

Mick F wrote:

byegad wrote: ........ My expectation is that we will have another general election before the end of the year.

Or even before the end of the month?
Yes please.
This one has been a joke.

Just over a third of the electorate wish to be governed by Tories, just over a quarter by Labour and over a fifth by Lib dems with some other smaller parties tootling along on the outside.

The election was fine, the joke is that potentially we'll end up with a government consisting of a party that only a third of people actually want.

Mick F wrote:

byegad wrote: ........ My expectation is that we will have another general election before the end of the year.

Or even before the end of the month?
Yes please.
This one has been a joke.

Trouble is Mick, there is little chance that the next result will be much different.

As a card carrying member of one of the major parties I'd be in favour of PR voting for all our elections, even though it would mean little chance of 'my' party ruling on its own ever again.
My sense of fair play is affronted by our present system.

byegad wrote:
My sense of fair play is affronted by our present system.

Quite!
Not to mention my sense of democracy by our present system!

kwackers wrote:Just over a third of the electorate wish to be governed by Tories, just over a quarter by Labour and over a fifth by Lib dems with some other smaller parties tootling along on the outside.

The election was fine, the joke is that potentially we'll end up with a government consisting of a party that only a third of people actually want.

That's the problem.
If those proportions were reflected in Parliament, we would be better represented in accordance with the way we voted. Past elections have resulted in a outright winner so we never complained before.

I was driving the Community Bus on Friday and listening to some of the old dears asking each other whether they'd voted. Most said no, as they couldn't make their mind up as they all seemed the same, and anyway, it was too much trouble. In the old days, we had more polling stations and they were all very local to where people lived. These days, some are a bus-ride away. If voting was made easier, the turn-out would be higher.

So these proportions are of the people that voted - not the electorate.

Mick F wrote:

kwackers wrote:Just over a third of the electorate wish to be governed by Tories, just over a quarter by Labour and over a fifth by Lib dems with some other smaller parties tootling along on the outside.

The election was fine, the joke is that potentially we'll end up with a government consisting of a party that only a third of people actually want.

That's the problem.
If those proportions were reflected in Parliament, we would be better represented in accordance with the way we voted. Past elections have resulted in a outright winner so we never complained before.

I was driving the Community Bus on Friday and listening to some of the old dears asking each other whether they'd voted. Most said no, as they couldn't make their mind up as they all seemed the same, and anyway, it was too much trouble. In the old days, we had more polling stations and they were all very local to where people lived. These days, some are a bus-ride away. If voting was made easier, the turn-out would be higher.

So these proportions are of the people that voted - not the electorate.

Perhaps we are taking our democracy for granted. In many other countries the electorate are much more keen to vote and in some I understand that voting is compulsory. I must confess that I did not vote and cannot offer a good reason except to say that I was not inspired by any of the candidates, or parties. (I do live in the traditional Labour constituency where a monkey wearing a red tie could get elected). I accept that, as my wife has pointed out about one million times, I have failed in my civic duty.

Someone on the radio this morning reckoned the voting figures, rounded up, were something like 11m to the Tories, 9 to Labour, 7 to the Libs.
Given some regional bias and a bit of tribalism that's a roughly equal share for all three parties. A rotating dictatorship based on a few seats cannot twist the vote as it has in the past. The parties must be made to work together and stop crowing.

I found this very interesting video, which I thought I'd share.

Why New Labour went wrong (not funny or anything, just a lecture):

http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2009/12/ ... ces-brown/

So, it looks like a Conservative/Liberal coalition now? I wonder what will happen next.

glueman wrote:Someone on the radio this morning reckoned the voting figures, rounded up, were something like 11m to the Tories, 9 to Labour, 7 to the Libs.
Given some regional bias and a bit of tribalism that's a roughly equal share for all three parties. A rotating dictatorship based on a few seats cannot twist the vote as it has in the past. The parties must be made to work together and stop crowing.

No, you're wrong.
Cameraman was on tele just after the results were in saying how it was a resounding defeat for Labour and showed that the country wanted change - as in a Conservative government.

Those 11m votes are much more important than the other 16m obviously. Only a fool wouldn't think so...