CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
They used to tell us that Ms Alexander (Wendy) had a brain the size of a planet. How did that work out for her.
Her brother appears to be on a shoogly nail too. I heard he has been out campaigning. This was difficult for him in the past as he was running the whole campaign. I don't know if he is this time round.
Wendy gave me a row in October 1983 causing me to leave glasgow uni labour club a day after joining.
I've yet to hear any favourable reports of her.
Caroline Lucas was on R4 this morning listing things which the English Greens wouldn't support. One of them was HS2. Now I'm quite happy with that, it doesn't seem to be the best way to spend money on trains, but she didn't explain why the English Greens were against it. Any ideas?
From the Greens' website:
The Greens support high speed rail in principle because it should improve Britain’s transport system, reduce road and air traffic and help cut carbon emissions.
But HS2 does too much damage to local communities and to the environment, and is too pricey. To achieve high speeds the trains are expected to use up to 50% more fuel than Eurostar so carbon emissions will not be reduced. The enormous sums involved could be better spent improving transport for everybody, not just the wealthy business-people who will be able to afford to use HS2.
The final point makes some sense (if you treat HS2 in isolation and don't believe the knock-on benefits to the wider rail network are worth it), but can you really say you support it in principle, but in reality only if it is nothing like an high speed railway by going nowhere near local communities and not using more fuel?
I don't know how much knock on there will be from HS2.
Are we supposed to take the current west coast line to Birmingham and change onto HS or just take the west coast all the way? Once you factor in the time taken to change and leave a buffer for late running it might not even be worth it. I know that friends in the west of Glasgow use the Airdrie-Bathgate line for going to Edinburgh now. On paper it's slower but you don't need to change at Queen St so in practice it makes little difference.
I expect the HS2 will have a price premium over the west coast line. If you're coming from Glasgow anyway the time saving over that journey might not be worth the premium. I'd have to say I use the bus because it's usually much cheaper and I just go at night so the time taken doesn't matter too much.
I also don't know if the HS2 will have lots of stops on the way.
Damage to communities is a tricky one. We only have the current rail system because someone built it and possibly damaged communities on the way. On the other hand the M8 from Townhead to Jct 9 is built on top of the Monklands canal… in part because it wouldn't cause damage to communities as the canal already existed.
Other trains might not be the best comparison for HS2. Does it use more/less fuel per person than flying might be more appropriate.
Anywho, I just thought it was interesting to hear her say she wasn't in favour of a train.
Part of the thing with HS2 and its relative damage to the environment is that unlike the bendy old Victorian-age railway, which largely follows the contours of the land, with as little hard engineering as possible, the HS2 is to be much "straighter" to allow for the higher speeds. This probably involves far more digging of cuttings and construction of concrete viaducts.
It's a bit like the mega wind turbines that require so much concrete poured into their foundations and lightweight steel and aluminium in their structure that they're unlikely to cover the carbon emmissions of their own construction costs.
They're talking about using trains that can high speed it on the HS-infra then happily cruise along existing infra, so you wouldn't have to change.
However, the main knock-on benefit is freeing up capacity on the west coast main line, which is currently pretty damn full, despite all the money Railtrack and Network Rail have inefficiently spent on it.
They're talking about using trains that can high speed it on the HS-infra then happily cruise along existing infra, so you wouldn't have to change.
HS2 is specified to GC loading gauge, it would be massively wasteful to run UK-gauge compatible trains on that.
"They're talking about using trains that can high speed it on the HS-infra then happily cruise along existing infra, so you wouldn't have to change."
That makes sense, but not clear how much it's 'real'.
Would get more support (especially in Scotland) if more was said about 'HS2 will reduce journey times from Euston to Glasgow' - so are 'they' playing it down to 'encourage' the case for more HS2 (further north), or...
UPDATE
As k just said!
Meanwhile -
"
NEW routes linking the Capital with London have helped to boost passenger numbers at Edinburgh Airport.
The latest figures showed that the airport had seen a 6.8 per cent rise in numbers on last year, with 791,975 people flying in and out of Scotland’s busiest airport last month.
"
That makes sense, but not clear how much it's 'real'.
Still waiting for that direct train to Paris. Been waiting since about 1988.
@ps
"I'm frequently astonished to hear Shapps and Osbourne being described as political tactical geniuses when all they seem to be doing is appealing to a proportion of the 30% rump of folk who would more than likely be voting Conservative anyway. I always thought that the way to win an election was to appeal to people who might be thinking of voting for someone else."
I wonder how much of it is just getting your own sympathisers to actually vote.
The turnout at the last GE was 65%. Of the remaining 35%, there's probably at least 25% (25/35) who simply will never vote.
That leaves 10% of the electorate that could, if you do a good job, be motivated to turn out.
So there has to be a certain amount of preaching to the choir. (With the additional hope that you can inspire them to act as "advocates" and influence their friends/family.)
Having said all this, I do agree the Tories' marketing people seem to be blind to anyone who isn't part of their little world.
kaputnik - Agreed. I always though the idea that there would be two train fleets running on HS2 was nonsense. I suppose Eurostar could transfer their old UK compatible fleet for running along HS2 and on to the conventional network north of the new high speed line. Far cheaper than building a new fleet and Eurostar are now buying a new fleet of Siemens trains, although to supplement rather than replace the current fleet.
Conservative manifesto:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
Cycling does get a mention.
Might I congratulate all involved so far in generating a thoroughly readable and enjoyable thread (having just caught up)?
finally got a reply from my SNP candidate to the #votebike request
"thoroughly readable and enjoyable thread"
Complete with the usual CCE-style deviations!
"Our aim is for almost every car and van to be a zero
emission vehicle by 2050 – and we will invest £500
million over the next five years to achieve it. We want
to double the number of journeys made by bicycle and
will invest over £200 million to make cycling safer, so we
reduce the number of cyclists and other road users killed
or injured on our roads every year"
Less than half the amount on just electric vehicles (in the next five years - there isn't a timescale put on cycling), and the suggestion (reducing injuries etc. for other road users) suggests to me (possibly reading behind the lines from a leftist agenda) that they're just talking about a roads budget not specifically allocated to cycling...
I like their 'Blue Belt' idea.
Right to Buy extension can only work (as previously proven) if you have plans to replace the lost stock. It's all a bit airy-fairy on that. Essentially they're saying they'll put that burden on the local councils, so essentially they can blame them when it all goes wrong. I'm always torn on right to buy as my parents made use of it back in the 90s, but the capitalist home-ownership agenda (not often present in other European countries where I understand renting is much more common - I may be wrong on that though, I've no figures for it) pushes all my Margaret Thatcher buttons....
"thoroughly readable and enjoyable thread"
Complete with the usual CCE-style deviations!
I thought for a second that you both meant the Tory manifesto....
"Complete with the usual CCE-style deviations!"
See "enjoyable", supra.
AND FINALLY
Bikes make it into #GE2015!!!!
https://twitter.com/jimforscotland/status/587940143476113408
Black trousers and brown shoes.
After the Madness gig in December I have been tempted to get ox blood Docs but I've been fighting it.
Hmmm. Anyone earning minimum wage and working 30 hours a week won't have to pay income tax.
If you work 30 hours a week at minimum wage you earn £10,140. Current personal allowance is... £10,600.
If you worked 40 hours a week (technically you're not allowed to work more than 48, but the UK allows employers to opt out of the working time directive)you'd earn £13,520 a year, so you'd save £584 for the year. Now as a proportion of salary that's obviously a bigger hit, so is good news for those on minimum wage, working that number of hours.
Are there any figures available for just how many people on minimum wage earn work more than 31 hours (as it's around 32 hours that the savings kick in)?
Oh, and those minimum wage limits are if you're over 21. Between 18 and 20 and you'd need to work 40 hours for the saving to kick in.
WC - I've never heard of a housing crisis being solved by selling-off socially rented homes. This policy also requires councils to sell their best properties as they become vacant - to pay for new "cheaper" homes to replace the housing association ones that are bought. This will, in my opinion, lead to two things:
1. Less new social rented homes being built than are sold. Young people and those on low incomes become locked in to private renting.
2. Reduction in mixed tenure communities, as the last council homes in better-off areas are sold off. Social housing effectively becomes the preserve of the very poor and desperate.
Does anyone think these are desirable outcomes?
Exactly (as I say, the only reason I'm torn on it is I know it worked out well for my folks, but as a long-term social need solution it's generally abysmal... Especially when you factor in the housing crisis).
On the Today show this morning they played a clip of Maggie talking about the Right to Buy, and the rhetoric was so so similar to that used in the Manifesto.
Spokes #GE2015 report...
http://www.spokes.org.uk/2015/04/general-election-2015/
Includes searches by candidate surname on the Spokes website!
Interestingly, all candidates who are Spokes members have done something which prompted a mention in one article or another in the last few years. Mark Lazarowicz probably coming out top in that respect.
"Hmmm. Anyone earning minimum wage and working 30 hours a week won't have to pay income tax."
I thought that was immensely sneaky as the (radio) headlines just said 'people on MW won't pay income tax'.
There is of course the other income-related tax - National Insurance. The rationale for keeping this seems to be slight.
On one hand if people don't earn much it should be perhaps a simple principle that 'those on minimum wage don't pay income tax' on the other hand 'all workers should pay some income tax so that they are part of society'.
This was part of the reason Gordon Brown introduced the 10p tax rate - but that didn't last long.
Everyone pays tax - unless they don't spend any money - so 'being a taxpayer', meaning income tax payer is a bit artificial and subtly (or not) 'jobist'.
Obviously politicians like the idea of hard-working-people, but some also want 'more volunteering', in addition, it subtly (or not) helps to stigmatise those who 'don't work'. More accurately those who don't have JOBS - so ignoring people who care for young/old/sick relatives - by choice or because they 'have no choice'.
"Right to Buy extension can only work (as previously proven) if you have plans to replace the lost stock. It's all a bit airy-fairy on that."
That's putting it mildly.
Liz Truss was on the radio at lunchtime breezily half-answering questions. The gist seemed to be that 'they' would fund new building by making councils sell off very expensive houses.
Clearly most are likely to be in Central London - and presumably have tenants who couldn't afford to mortgage/buy, so would have to be made homeless first...
In addition she seemed to be saying that the proceeds from such sales would then be cash for the Government to spend on new houses.
I can understand why some people were/are ideologically opposed to sell council (and now HA) housing.
I can understand why some people are ideological in favour of selling those houses to create more owner occupiers.
What I can't understand (okay I can) is why the right to buy doesn't extend to a privately owned property!
Subsidising owner occupation is a political decision, and not a cheap one.
What is very unclear in the new/current Conservative plan, is how much the discounts would be (in total) and exactly where that money is coming from. In one sense it is purely bookkeeping because the discount wouldn't have to be found in cash - just be that the income would be less than the market value. BUT building the replacement houses would require the discount to be 'found' and almost certainly more cash - unless they were all in 'cheap' areas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32298696
From link:
"
The £4.5bn putative proceeds would be used for four purposes: to pay for the housing association sale discounts (of course); to clean up poisoned brownfield land for housing development; and to provide the funds for housing associations and local authorities to replace sold housing on a one-for-one basis.
"
On Tax, my wife will likely pay no tax when she goes back to work on reduced hours. I'm kind of torn on it, as 'we' will benefit as a household, but we don't really need the extra few hundred pounds (of course it will be nice and put to good use, but we're not really the intended beneficiaries of this policy.).
"but we're not really the intended beneficiaries of this policy"
Really?
I thought it was all about 'hard-working-families'.
There are some notions (spoken and unspoken) that people on low wages are either 'not worth paying more' or 'not really working hard enough' or 'just starting out and will get paid better with more experience/training' - which are perhaps not as 'true' as some politicians wish to believe.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts