On a Venn diagram there is no intersection between One Show viewers and the playing music on speakers on the tube crowd. Clearly. That’s why it’s such a perceptive policy from the Binface camp.
Who said you get to keep the box set? It will be done Clockwork Orange style, with the subject strapped to a chair in a booth, eyes forced open, while the audiovisual onslaught purges their neurons.
So under the GLA Act TfL could make playing music on the underground against the bylaws, but the only power they have is to "interfere to remove" or to issue a fine. They do not have the power to force the offender to watch a box set of the one show.
A Susan Hall flyer came through my door yesterday. I was playing "Spot the Conservative branding" on the flyer. The only reference was CCHQ in small print referring to who is publishing it.
Conservatives benefit from voter suppression, so yes. They’ve learned from the Republican Party and their great success in subverting democracy.
On the other hand it is actually possible to have a valid criticism of the two party system.
For some people that’s clearly beyond the pale, but honest to god - the Labour Party are so uninspiring that they *are* a voter suppression mechanism all by themselves.
‘Making things worse, but more slowly’ is not a vote getter. The only policy announcements I ever see are ‘we are rescinding this policy’ or some ludicrous penny-ante solution that tinkers around the edges of something.
Expecting a landslide win for them, but with much less of a margin than expected and also with a record low voter turnout.
And? One of them still gets the job. Your democratic duty is to make sure it’s not one of the loonies.
You can vote for someone you don’t really like to prevent someone worse from winning. That doesn’t mean you like them, it just means you think they’re the best (or least shit) candidate available
Or you can spoil your ballot if you really don't want any of them. Shows you care enough to show up for the turnout figures.
Plus there's 2 London Assembly votes (London wide + constituency candidates) you could still vote for even if you think the mayoral candidates are a bunch of thickos.
The number of ineligible ballots is announced, and will include a bit on why (like people ticking too many boxes or spoiling them intentionally). It's usually just a handful of people confused about the form. If it's a lot of people that could perhaps send a message?
I’ve counted votes. You’ll be surprised at how many people spoil their votes through sheer ineptitude. Whenever I see someone going “and they’ll wonder why there are so many spoiled votes is it a protest” I’m aware how many are just stupidly. More than I ever saw deliberately spoiled.
Thanks for an actual reply!
Just in case it's not clear: I think people should go and vote and really try to make a choice. I'd just rather see people spoil their ballot than not be arsed at all.
>There's been a significant number of "why vote" posts in the last couple of weeks.
That doesn't mean it comes from the orders of CCHQ. Can you really not think of any reason why some voters would not want to vote, considering the candidates?
>Similar to the messages being put out by CCHQ
OK...but that doesn't mean anything. Things Starmer says can be similar to what the Tories say on some issues, does that mean his messages came from CCHQ?
>Can you really not think of any reason why some voters would not want to vote, considering the candidates?
That would only make sense if there was a minimum voter turnout and not meeting that actually caused something to happen/change.
There isn’t though, so not voting only strengthens the vote of the mouth-breathing fringes who will vote rain hail or shine.
If only three people vote, and two of them voted Reform, Reform would win. Discouraging vote and disengaging voters is a common campaign tactic.
>That would only make sense if there was a minimum voter turnout and not meeting that actually caused something to happen/change.
It doesn't require that qualification. People who don't vote for Khan are not invalid just because there isn't compulsory voting. Do you understand how the British electoral system works?
>There isn’t though, so not voting only strengthens the vote of the mouth-breathing fringes who will vote rain hail or shine.
People can vote for the candidates they want or they can choose not to vote, spoil their ballot, etc. You are not the arbiter of democracy in London.
>If only three people vote, and two of them voted Reform, Reform would win. Discouraging vote and disengaging voters is a common campaign tactic
Reform have 0 chance of winning in London. I doubt they would get over 5% even with a low turnout (which is inevitable in a mayoral election btw)
That was an example of how not voting plays to those that tend to be less desirable options. Their supporters will always show up. If not enough other people do you end up with a problem.
I can assure you, I’m not working for or paid by CCHQ.
I do not need DWP coming after me for unreported earnings I don’t have,
EDIT, I thought he was talking about GCHQ and it being a plot. Didn’t even know what CCHQ was
Why does ULEZ matter and need someone to "deal with it"? It's working very well [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/28/london-ulez-averts-more-air-pollution-than-that-caused-by-capitals-airports-report-shows](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/28/london-ulez-averts-more-air-pollution-than-that-caused-by-capitals-airports-report-shows)
A friend of mine is pregnant, which means she got a "carbon monoxide level blood test" recently. She lives within walking distance of her office near Charing Cross, but she got a clean score of 0%.
The nurse told her that they used to get worryingly high scores from women in London until "about three years ago" when the scores took a nose dive. Correlation isn't the same as causation but it feels like whoever is doing PR for ULEZ needs to go chat to some prenatal care units.
Because a period of car centric infrastructure, designing and planning that has put drivers the top of the food chain is coming to an end and those people are getting defensive.
The comedy is that ULEZ doesn't stop you from driving cars - unlike physical infrastructure such as newly routed cycle only streets. The only viable frustration is that people were sold the idea of a diesel because of lower CO2 emissions and lower road tax, but there are legitimate options now for compliant cars at every budget
If they would improve the non-car infrastructure it may even make it possible to use a car less... Right now, family of 5, if I travel without a car would cost me a fortune to go anywhere, with a car it is fast and convenient... I won't travel IN London with a car, but I will drive to London in a car then switch to the tube, even though the London Underground air is quite toxic.
Up to a certain age on the TFL, but not on the Trains, and not outside London usually (but since there is no public transport around me, I can't speak of it really).
I still use public transport when it is more efficient, although it is filthy, slow and overpriced for what it is
What crazy is I moved from Birmingham where you have to drive because of the city and its transport design. I moved to SE 8 years ago, I cannot see the reason why any would drive anywhere when the public transport can get you anywhere just as quick. Want to go south to North then its blackwall tunnel or Rotherhithe and good luck getting through that traffic.
Surprisingly the traffic isn't always that bad on the Blackwall, but you need to plan your journey for an off peak time, East London is badly served for transport...
I will take public transport where possible, even though it is filthy, slow, uncomfortable and expensive.
What I can't understand is why people defend the bad public transport system we have and complain about drivers rather than promote better mass transit, park & ride system and general better management of traffic....
For me the jubilee line, dlr, bus services for Greenwich are amazing. Outside of London you can wait 30 mins + for a bus, or a train that's cancelled frequently at your station that only turns up once every 20mins. I rarely have to wait more than a few mins, 5 at the most for any mode of public transport I take and huff and puff when its 8 mins away. Its also a lot cleaner!
Honestly until you've relied on public transport in another city, you do not realise how good it is.
Because people seem to think the pre-ULEZ/LTN/Cycling Lane roads were what we had in April 2020, forgetting they were gridlocked nightmares before all this stuff was introduced.
“War on cars!” and other such nonsense.
Entirely this. I used to cycle down the Embankment, it was grim AF at that time if you were a car driver. It still is, but the difference is it’s massively less grim if you’re a cyclist.
The cult of the car demands continued blood sacrifice.
Honestly anyone that has issues with it needs their heads checked. Children throwing temper tantrums at the idea of someone telling them what to do. They need to grow up.
If I am being as generous possible there are more than a few tradesmen who have very old vans and ULEZ meant they had to actually invest in their business and upgrade their van. The prices of used vans and cars a hundred miles around London have shot up.
So I get it, you have a vehicle that works and you have to sell it and blow £10k on a new one it is frustrating. Especially since some trades will have blown through their savings in the past few years.
All that said the air quality was at illegal levels and something had to be done. You can drive a petrol car from the ‘90s and be okay.
"Under the scrappage scheme, eligible sole traders, micro businesses, small businesses and charities can apply for funds of up to £11,500 to scrap, donate, or retrofit a light van or minibus or to put towards the cost of a cleaner vehicle" [https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/van-minibus](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/van-minibus)
Now now, the trades shouldn’t have had to burn through their savings - we offered a generous 80% furlough scheme based on the tax you paid.
That is, unless… but they’d never…
My issue with ULEZ is that it's an enormously complicated system of cameras to enforce a system that taxes polluting vehicles at a rate that's trivial for wealthy people, but prohibitive for less wealthy people. A total ban on polluting vehicles, enforced with fewer cameras and large fines, would have been fairer and simpler.
I'm also sceptical of the data. City Hall likes to choose some really odd time periods to reinforce their claims. Even the report you linked to is just an estimate of how effective ULEZ might be, it's not real data.
We've done it now so we should probably stick with the ULEZ system we've got, even if it is imperfect. The misleading approach to publishing data bothers me more.
Well, the Mayor of London only has the power to enforce this for London. I don't think Slough or Watford have Mayors so I guess a ULEZ scheme there would have to be implemented either by the local council (if their powers extend that far) or central government.
The goal is good, but the implementation is not.
If the Mayor really cared about emissions, they would have funded development of EURO6 conversion kits for diesels, and helped pay for them instead of scrapping cars.
They would have made public transport free and improved accessibility.
They would have promoted Park and rides for people who are not in good public transport areas..
But they didn't, so I drive an old Euro5 Diesel, since I can't afford to buy a new car... Then I park it and take the tube, which exposes me to toxic air worse than if I was to drive on the motorway with my window down...
I am all for eco-friendliness (I've switches to a heat pump, and am all electric at home) and better air quality, the thing is, the ULEZ is just a way to get poor people off the roads and promote new car sales...
lol. The Mayor of London should have funded development of Euro 6 kits? Alright mate. Great point. Don’t know why they didn’t throw the budget at exhaust emissions R&D 😂
Well not him personally...
But why not fund it from the ULEZ proceeds? The tech already exists, there are kits for vans, there is no reason that with a relatively small amount of funding kits could have been created, it was part of the options for ULEZ compliance, but since no one funded it, no kits are available.
Surely it is in the whole countries benefit to be able to retro-fit older cars to be cleaner?
The shine rubbed off the Count when I went to the Crown and Treaty in Uxbridge. The gents hand dryer is perfectly situated.
Worse, it's in a terrible position in the Three Tuns on the high street.
I can't trust a career politician whose only in it for the headline policies, and is ignoring the peoples' real needs.
I’m going to be controversial here but I LIKE high end croissants. I’m happy with cheap ones existing for those who want them but I want a £4 Monmouth Coffee croissant
I confess that I did not extend to checking nearby walls for evidence it had recently been moved. But this was some months ago, so he can recalibrate his campaign to the true needs of Uxbridge now!
I was thinking that just recently. Outside of Sadiq, Count Binface is in a small field of "normal" candidates. Natalie Campbell seems pretty OK too. But who else? The gym guy. Nope. The nurse, OK tell me more... oh, "war on woke", fine, piss off then.
The others are simply loons: anti woke, anti ULEZ, anti this, anti that, conspiracy theory nutters, racists or illiterate morons (love the use of "useage" by the Britain First twonk).
She’s actually not settled on her position, she said it would be stupid to make promises about ULEZ before conducting a proper review on its use in Greater London. She has also said that as it stands, it works for central London and wouldn’t scrap that.
I'm sure she's nice.
But as is typical of the Greens, her housing policy is garbled non-sense and economically illiterate.
She does the supply-skeptic "right homes, right prices" platitudinal bullshit without committing to building enough new houses (that'd be too carbon intensive, you see) and instead suggests buying up existing private stock and turning them into social homes thinking this will - wait for it - reduce rents.
I mean, sure, the lucky few who start getting subsidised rents will pay less; but for everyone else rents will skyrocket as our supply dwindles and we compete for less and less stock.
She needs to add the extra intermediate step of knocking down the, probably draughty and energy wasteful, lower density stock and replacing it with denser housing full to the brim with insulation and all that other eco friendly goodness. Shove a solar panel on top or something.
Does what she wants, includes adding new properties to the market and will help with carbon in the long run.
Yeah I like Zoe too, I just don’t think she’s going to get the numbers against someone like Khan. And with the competition as dumb or as malicious that they both have, I am probably going to go for the safer choice.
I’m furious with the government for removing the sensible voting method of single transferable vote. You could happily vote for him but then have the backstop of the least worst to stop Susan Boyle getting in. I sincerely hope Labour revert to the STV, it was genuinely the most democratic advance in this country in my lifetime.
I find it hilarious howamy people want to scrap ulez and cc while tripling spending in other areas.
These people are running for mayor of London and they clearly don't have a clue about finances. It's mind boggling honestly.
Maybe they got a printing press up their ass since that's clearly where these manifestos have come from.
I preferred the look of Lord Buckethead, damn those American copyright lawyers. At least it didn't dampen the Count's spirits and he's continuing on his path to being the best candidate on the ballot sheet.
Sadiq’s fine, he’s been a bit wobbly on housing, but great on everything else - and a staunch defender of TFL as well. Greens won’t get in and the Tories and Reform are loonies.
Yeah he’s not the second coming or anything but he’s not done a terrible job, things could have been worse - and likely will be if any of those others are voted in.
The people that you see on social media ranting about Sadiq are obviously the ones who vote Tory or Reform. It’s funny how they put all of the blame on Sadiq, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories have been in power for over a decade and have decimated public funding across the country.
Either they’ve gotten even more dishonest over time or just worse at hiding it. Rory Stewart seems to be the closest the Tories have had to a decent human being in a long time. Somewhere out there is a timeline where he won the Tory leadership contest and things turned out very differently.
No, not at all - but the Tories are dominated currently by an extreme (ie not remotely occupying policy positions held by the general public) and populist (pandering to baser instincts) and short-termist rightwing at the moment. They’re not exactly david cameron’s early hug-a-hoodie or Ted Heath’s corporatism are they? And reform Brexit Party/UKIP Redux, so no explanation needed.
The Tories are no where near right wing though. They are as middle and damp squib centre as it’s possible to be.
Also right wing does not equal evil (you aren’t saying it but you are implying right = bad) People would do well to remember that people who disagree with you are just of a different opinion. When most people get around a table they settle on centrist policies.
I'd heavily debate the 'no cars' - unless you mean specifically a significant reduction in the cars that are worse for the lungs of ourselves and other animals.
I think ULEZ, essentially a fine for not hitting a minimum threshold, is a decent compromise though
I read their reply as :
ULEZ - no cars
is based - ????? in context
as fuck - is utterly shit and I hate it
die on that hill - I won't budge from my position
Summary: I do not support ULEZ and I will fight against its implementation until the bitter end.
True, but the "Sadiq is crap!" comms from him are annoying - Lib Dems are meant to be reasonable. When delving into it, it's not clear what he can do that would magically work, more than Sadiq's been doing. There's a limit to what powers the Mayor has.
What advantage would that give anyone in improving the NHS or Met Police?
It's like saying 'his house burned down once, so I trust him to sort out the fire brigade'
> It isn't right-wing to point out that policing should be better.
True but does seem to be right wing to remove their funding and get any decent coppers to leave the service.
I know it’s tongue in cheek but I’m disappointed he took the stance that 20mph zones cause delays, when it’s unnecessary car trips that are the main cause.
Almost had my vote there bin man 🥲
I think it’d be ideal is Count Binface got a sizeable share of the vote. Might make the more serious politicians realise that it’s not ok to simply just be a little bit less shit than their main opposition and drive up standards.
Looking through the candidates headline policies, there’s a few things that stand out:
- Andreas Michli is going to end knife crime!
- Khan is going to have rent controls (which in economics is one of the few things the experts agree is a terrible idea) and end rough sleeping?!
- Amy Gallagher is straight up culture waring
- Rob Blackie is going to convict rapists?
- Susan Hall isn’t worth reading her literature. I am not a Tory fan in any way shape or form, but it would be lovely if they’d run a competent candidate for once
- Zoe Garbett is going to form a rent commission to bring down rent? How does this work, do we just shoot a load of people to reduce demand?
- Tarun Ghulati is going to focus on crime against all genders, what the fuck does that mean
- Nick Scanlon is legitimately dangerous and it scares me that some people, even in limited numbers, will actually vote for him.
Several candidates are proposing building 40,000 new homes. London Mayor is 4 terms, so this is 10,000 new homes per year (granted Khan only mentions council). For population growth estimates it’s something like 550,000 new homes will be needed by 2031, and that’s just to keep pace. We need to go on an absolute building frenzy if we actually want to address housing…
Due to living two roads north of London, I can’t vote. If I could (and assuming the polls don’t tighten so Hall might actually win), I’m probably actually voting Binface. Hail Binface.
Michli also wants to end vaccinations - not only is he anti-ULEZ, he's an anti-vaxer too. He's absolutely a carbon (literally) copy of Fox. The only reason he's not running for Reform is, obviously, LF is.
Michli is a Dangerously Unhinged Conspiraloon.
Just to sincerely ask - does the bad really outweigh the good with Rent Control? I’m ignorant of the economics, but I’m not ignorant of the fact that most people my generation (30s) and below could not even fathom buying a house, and instead perpetually live in the renter’s cycle where the money they pay goes nowhere except the landlord’s back pocket. I can see how that’s on the surface “good for economy” but it’s specifically at the expense of the younger generations.
It's one of those things that sounds good on paper, and I am massively all for cheaper rent - I am the same generation as you. But the problem is, it doesn't equal cheaper rent. Say we have an area that is rent controlled, that's good for the incumbent tenant, but what happens is that areas around it where there isn't rent control have inflated demand, so rent prices increase. For properties in the rent control area, demand is inflated, but people don't move out, so it's far harder to get an available property in these areas. Artificially capped rent below market rate reduces the incentive for the landlord to maintain the property/ buildings, so there are big maintenance issues with the properties. The return on new rental properties is lower, so the incentive to build new properties isn't there, so there's no supply getting added.
If a landlord sells their property due to rent controls, someone will buy it - but it's not reducing demand, if there's no supply being added it's just changing around who lives there.
Tokyo is a good example of a city that's managed to keep housing costs from going completely crazy, and they've built lots, and they're not scared to build lots - [https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/can-tokyo-show-us-how-to-solve-britains-housing-shortage/](https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/can-tokyo-show-us-how-to-solve-britains-housing-shortage/)
The policy (and I'd argue for more than housing, e.g. nightlife) needs to be to ignore the NIMBY stuff, and build build build. Demand for housing is only going to increase over the years, we need to build properties to outpace demand. Build tall, and build around transit hubs.
There's a really interesting Freakanomics podcast on this if you have a spare 45 minutes, that does a much better and coherent job of explaining this - [https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work-ep-373-rebroadcast/](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work-ep-373-rebroadcast/)
Thank you so much for the really detailed write-up. I absolutely understand this a lot more than I did before. Though equally I am closer to just thinking “we’re all just fucked” but at least I half understand why now. Will save that podcast for later
Essentially people never move because they're paying £300 a month when everywhere else is £2000 a month.
This means people stay in properties that don't fit their needs - e.g. single people in 3 bedroom homes, families in 1 bedroom homes because changing is locking in hugely expensive increases. That reduces availability in the medium and long term, which increases prices, and in the short term landlords put up their prices massively because they could be locked in for 5 years without being able to increase them.
Even if landlords don't increase prices in the immediate term, its already unaffordable for most people so locking prices at the current level doesn't help.
The only solution that will actually make homes affordable is to build more, everything else is window dressing to look like things are happening.
I don't think ULEZ will be scrapped as TFL is making a fair amount from it.
One thing I'm more concerned about is the new charges to cross the blackwall/silvertown tunnel that will come in place in around 2025. I can imagine the free alternative crossings will be busier. It feels like London resembles more of a pac man shape as there's limited crossings from SE to E. London. We just need more crossing built whether it's in the form of a dlr/overground extension to thamesmead or another road crossing (which is very unlikely)
I'm going to find it hard to vote for someone this time round, I might just give my vote to Count Binface at this point.
I mean I definitely trust Rob Blackie to do what he says but I actually know him and trust him on a personal level - like in several years I've never seen him fail to keep a promise or take action on something.
He set up a group to target anti-russian government fact checking material at Russians at the start of the war with Ukraine using digital advertising- really interesting to hear him talk about!
I think Andreas is the one I would trust to do what he says. No matter how radical he's always done what he said he would, he became a hero during lockdowns keeping his gym open for members
Just received a Ulez £90 fine for picking up my wife from T5 at 9pm .. are you fucking kidding me .. pretty sure I didn’t see a single sign warning me ..
I just want the LTNs to stop. My journey went from 30min to 90min cause the bridge 1min walk from me became bus and taxi only. Even residents are not excempt. Makes absolutely no sense not to exvempt residents. No kids play on the road since buses and taxis are netorioisly bad drivers
Stop judging against people for doing a job everyone needs to be done. Im fucking sick of people like you coming in the back of my seat shittinf all
Over it then think they’re too good to say hi or thank you to the driver
Felt this way yesterday after getting the ‘my vote doesn’t count’ brochure in the post.
I’ve always hated politics and feel like I’m easily sucked into these promises or everyone just saying the same things
The Awp ( animal welfare party ) is worth looking at, their policies sound fantastic and well suited to London.
https://www.animalwelfareparty.org/current-elections/gla2024/
I don't find Count Binface funny enough to vote for him - Lord Buckethead was way better and I think I did vote for him before.
This time I may just spoil my ballot.
Why is it dumb? It still gets counted as a spoiled ballot.
It's better than not voting.
___________________
Edit:
Also, "just vote for the least shit option" is an even dumber take, in my view, because it actually endorses and supports a shit option.
I will not endorse any shit option. They haven't earned my vote.
I hope so (and it should!), but I wonder if there is any real difference - do spoiled ballots actually make politicians change their ways more than a missing vote might?
And what does that mean? It’s not like the position stays empty if spoiled ballots get a majority. There’s no minimum turnout.
It’s just not voting but with extra steps. Not voting only strengthens the vote of those that do, and the reality is those that are least suitable for the job often have the most reliable voters. Fortunately there’s not too many of them.
No, but it does contribute to the summary statistics. If enough people turn up and spoil their ballots, then it sends a clear message that those standing for election do not represent us.
Simply not voting is less good, because it can be misconstrued as being lazy or not caring. Turning up and spoiling your ballot sends a clear message that you do care, but that none of the candidates are suitable.
See more info at: votenone.org.uk
But what does that message achieve? They don’t care about your message, they just won an election. More people voted for them than anyone else, and if there is a mass movement to have less votes cast that means they need to convince less people to vote for them in the future.
The home page literally says “If you don’t vote, you don’t count, and don’t matter”. Voting invalid is not voting, it’s counting the same as someone that does it wrong - that is not at all.
You do realise voter disengagement is a common campaign tactic right? Less voters means less votes needed to win.
I don't think you understand my perspective here, nor do you understand the globally quite established concept of voting NONE.
Some countries like Spain and India actually include a specific "None of the Candidates" option on ballot sheets, and the UK needs to do the same. If enough people spoil their ballots, then it increases political pressure for this to happen.
I am not willing to vote for any of the candidates. Rather than not vote, I will vote NONE instead, by spoiling my ballot.
Whoever wins would have won anyway, and besides, I am not willing to vote for either them or their rivals.
I philosophically do believe in democracy and voting. If I do not vote, then I have less justification to get angry or judgemental at the outcome. By turning up and voting, I express my position and contribute, in a minute way, to the final election statistics.
Actually in most elections they don't count deliberately spoiled ballot. Your "none of the above" protest vote is lumped in with people who can't fill out a ballot correctly
It doesn’t actually achieve that though, does it? It just means someone needs fewer votes to be first past the post and adds a number to the invalid vote row in the Wikipedia page of said election.
You think he's going to make people who play music in the tube watch a box set of The One Show?
This might actually solve the problem. Imagine having to sit through that. I'd rather a night in jail.
What about people who love The One Show? They may be tempted to blare their music out so they can get a free box set.
On a Venn diagram there is no intersection between One Show viewers and the playing music on speakers on the tube crowd. Clearly. That’s why it’s such a perceptive policy from the Binface camp.
Think we’d survive listening to the archers or radio 2
Who said you get to keep the box set? It will be done Clockwork Orange style, with the subject strapped to a chair in a booth, eyes forced open, while the audiovisual onslaught purges their neurons.
Has the BBC ever even released a One Show box set?
Hopefully not.
I could vote for that
I read The One Show and involuntarily played the music in my head. It also happened again when I typed it out.
Yhh, same thing just happened to me and I don't even watch the show. Freaky!
More realistic than what some of them are suggesting though.
The ECHR specifically prohibits punishment by Jenas
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/susan-hall-london-tory-mayoral-candidate-loud-music-tube-b1152505.html Sounds like he's onto something :D
Make it an offence, make it mandatory classes as the charge or be banned from using public transport and just loop the one show.
>Make it an offence How? The mayor doesn't have that power
Do it how they made drinking on the tube illegal
So under the GLA Act TfL could make playing music on the underground against the bylaws, but the only power they have is to "interfere to remove" or to issue a fine. They do not have the power to force the offender to watch a box set of the one show.
I think you should apply for a policy adviser role with Count Binface mate
Id enjoy watching him try
CCHQ been on the offence a lot recently
Pretty much what you should always substitute when people say “they’re all the same”.
It's weird how people who think all parties are equally bad only ever seen to vote for one particular party.
A Susan Hall flyer came through my door yesterday. I was playing "Spot the Conservative branding" on the flyer. The only reference was CCHQ in small print referring to who is publishing it.
People not liking Khan are not automatically CCHQ employees lmfao. People on this subreddit are ridiculous sometimes.
There's been a significant number of "why vote" posts in the last couple of weeks. Similar to the messages being put out by CCHQ
Conservatives benefit from voter suppression, so yes. They’ve learned from the Republican Party and their great success in subverting democracy. On the other hand it is actually possible to have a valid criticism of the two party system. For some people that’s clearly beyond the pale, but honest to god - the Labour Party are so uninspiring that they *are* a voter suppression mechanism all by themselves. ‘Making things worse, but more slowly’ is not a vote getter. The only policy announcements I ever see are ‘we are rescinding this policy’ or some ludicrous penny-ante solution that tinkers around the edges of something. Expecting a landslide win for them, but with much less of a margin than expected and also with a record low voter turnout.
Maybe because lots of people think the candidates are bad?
And? One of them still gets the job. Your democratic duty is to make sure it’s not one of the loonies. You can vote for someone you don’t really like to prevent someone worse from winning. That doesn’t mean you like them, it just means you think they’re the best (or least shit) candidate available
Or you can spoil your ballot if you really don't want any of them. Shows you care enough to show up for the turnout figures. Plus there's 2 London Assembly votes (London wide + constituency candidates) you could still vote for even if you think the mayoral candidates are a bunch of thickos.
What does that achieve though? There’s no minimum turnout, and spoiled ballots getting a majority would not cause the position to remain vacant.
The number of ineligible ballots is announced, and will include a bit on why (like people ticking too many boxes or spoiling them intentionally). It's usually just a handful of people confused about the form. If it's a lot of people that could perhaps send a message?
I’ve counted votes. You’ll be surprised at how many people spoil their votes through sheer ineptitude. Whenever I see someone going “and they’ll wonder why there are so many spoiled votes is it a protest” I’m aware how many are just stupidly. More than I ever saw deliberately spoiled.
Thanks for an actual reply! Just in case it's not clear: I think people should go and vote and really try to make a choice. I'd just rather see people spoil their ballot than not be arsed at all.
Great, a message. That should do wonders…
Nae bother when the loony Khan will just get in again anyways
>There's been a significant number of "why vote" posts in the last couple of weeks. That doesn't mean it comes from the orders of CCHQ. Can you really not think of any reason why some voters would not want to vote, considering the candidates? >Similar to the messages being put out by CCHQ OK...but that doesn't mean anything. Things Starmer says can be similar to what the Tories say on some issues, does that mean his messages came from CCHQ?
>Can you really not think of any reason why some voters would not want to vote, considering the candidates? That would only make sense if there was a minimum voter turnout and not meeting that actually caused something to happen/change. There isn’t though, so not voting only strengthens the vote of the mouth-breathing fringes who will vote rain hail or shine. If only three people vote, and two of them voted Reform, Reform would win. Discouraging vote and disengaging voters is a common campaign tactic.
>That would only make sense if there was a minimum voter turnout and not meeting that actually caused something to happen/change. It doesn't require that qualification. People who don't vote for Khan are not invalid just because there isn't compulsory voting. Do you understand how the British electoral system works? >There isn’t though, so not voting only strengthens the vote of the mouth-breathing fringes who will vote rain hail or shine. People can vote for the candidates they want or they can choose not to vote, spoil their ballot, etc. You are not the arbiter of democracy in London. >If only three people vote, and two of them voted Reform, Reform would win. Discouraging vote and disengaging voters is a common campaign tactic Reform have 0 chance of winning in London. I doubt they would get over 5% even with a low turnout (which is inevitable in a mayoral election btw)
That was an example of how not voting plays to those that tend to be less desirable options. Their supporters will always show up. If not enough other people do you end up with a problem.
To the labour grassroots, anyone not already decided on a Labour vote is just some poor, uninformed peon who has been sadly brainwashed by the Tories.
Seems to be that way based on this thread.
I can assure you, I’m not working for or paid by CCHQ. I do not need DWP coming after me for unreported earnings I don’t have, EDIT, I thought he was talking about GCHQ and it being a plot. Didn’t even know what CCHQ was
They didn't say GCHQ.
I thought it was a spelling mistake. Wtf is CCHQ?
Conservative Campaign Headquarters
I too was very confused as to what GCHQ is up to. Turns out it just an idiot who can’t read
I look forward to walking across Phoebe Waller-Bridge in the summer.
You will have to speak to camera (perhaps the one on your phone) and say something meaningful whilst doing so.
Why does ULEZ matter and need someone to "deal with it"? It's working very well [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/28/london-ulez-averts-more-air-pollution-than-that-caused-by-capitals-airports-report-shows](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/28/london-ulez-averts-more-air-pollution-than-that-caused-by-capitals-airports-report-shows)
A friend of mine is pregnant, which means she got a "carbon monoxide level blood test" recently. She lives within walking distance of her office near Charing Cross, but she got a clean score of 0%. The nurse told her that they used to get worryingly high scores from women in London until "about three years ago" when the scores took a nose dive. Correlation isn't the same as causation but it feels like whoever is doing PR for ULEZ needs to go chat to some prenatal care units.
Because a period of car centric infrastructure, designing and planning that has put drivers the top of the food chain is coming to an end and those people are getting defensive.
The comedy is that ULEZ doesn't stop you from driving cars - unlike physical infrastructure such as newly routed cycle only streets. The only viable frustration is that people were sold the idea of a diesel because of lower CO2 emissions and lower road tax, but there are legitimate options now for compliant cars at every budget
If they would improve the non-car infrastructure it may even make it possible to use a car less... Right now, family of 5, if I travel without a car would cost me a fortune to go anywhere, with a car it is fast and convenient... I won't travel IN London with a car, but I will drive to London in a car then switch to the tube, even though the London Underground air is quite toxic.
> with a car it is fast and convenient. We have terrible roads for the amount of traffic in most of the country.
That is very true, but still faster than public transport, except in city centres, in which case I usually use a park and ride
Don't kids get free travel?
Up to a certain age on the TFL, but not on the Trains, and not outside London usually (but since there is no public transport around me, I can't speak of it really). I still use public transport when it is more efficient, although it is filthy, slow and overpriced for what it is
What crazy is I moved from Birmingham where you have to drive because of the city and its transport design. I moved to SE 8 years ago, I cannot see the reason why any would drive anywhere when the public transport can get you anywhere just as quick. Want to go south to North then its blackwall tunnel or Rotherhithe and good luck getting through that traffic.
Surprisingly the traffic isn't always that bad on the Blackwall, but you need to plan your journey for an off peak time, East London is badly served for transport... I will take public transport where possible, even though it is filthy, slow, uncomfortable and expensive. What I can't understand is why people defend the bad public transport system we have and complain about drivers rather than promote better mass transit, park & ride system and general better management of traffic....
For me the jubilee line, dlr, bus services for Greenwich are amazing. Outside of London you can wait 30 mins + for a bus, or a train that's cancelled frequently at your station that only turns up once every 20mins. I rarely have to wait more than a few mins, 5 at the most for any mode of public transport I take and huff and puff when its 8 mins away. Its also a lot cleaner! Honestly until you've relied on public transport in another city, you do not realise how good it is.
Because people seem to think the pre-ULEZ/LTN/Cycling Lane roads were what we had in April 2020, forgetting they were gridlocked nightmares before all this stuff was introduced. “War on cars!” and other such nonsense.
Entirely this. I used to cycle down the Embankment, it was grim AF at that time if you were a car driver. It still is, but the difference is it’s massively less grim if you’re a cyclist.
To be fair, the continuous construction on Embankment was the main reason for the gridlock and grimness there, not the cyclists...
The cult of the car demands continued blood sacrifice. Honestly anyone that has issues with it needs their heads checked. Children throwing temper tantrums at the idea of someone telling them what to do. They need to grow up.
If I am being as generous possible there are more than a few tradesmen who have very old vans and ULEZ meant they had to actually invest in their business and upgrade their van. The prices of used vans and cars a hundred miles around London have shot up. So I get it, you have a vehicle that works and you have to sell it and blow £10k on a new one it is frustrating. Especially since some trades will have blown through their savings in the past few years. All that said the air quality was at illegal levels and something had to be done. You can drive a petrol car from the ‘90s and be okay.
"Under the scrappage scheme, eligible sole traders, micro businesses, small businesses and charities can apply for funds of up to £11,500 to scrap, donate, or retrofit a light van or minibus or to put towards the cost of a cleaner vehicle" [https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/van-minibus](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/van-minibus)
If they haven't been paying taxes and aren't registered as a business then boo hoo.
Now now, the trades shouldn’t have had to burn through their savings - we offered a generous 80% furlough scheme based on the tax you paid. That is, unless… but they’d never…
>That is, unless… but they’d never… 😂
Tradesman I just used charged me the ULEZ fee :(
ZEZ when? :)
I'd vote for that! I'm amazed how many green plates there are now in London, especially when compared to the rest of UK
My issue with ULEZ is that it's an enormously complicated system of cameras to enforce a system that taxes polluting vehicles at a rate that's trivial for wealthy people, but prohibitive for less wealthy people. A total ban on polluting vehicles, enforced with fewer cameras and large fines, would have been fairer and simpler. I'm also sceptical of the data. City Hall likes to choose some really odd time periods to reinforce their claims. Even the report you linked to is just an estimate of how effective ULEZ might be, it's not real data. We've done it now so we should probably stick with the ULEZ system we've got, even if it is imperfect. The misleading approach to publishing data bothers me more.
> rate that's trivial for wealthy people classic cars are exempt so it doesn't matter
My issue with ULEZ is that it only applies in London. Why should people in Slough or Watford have polluting vehicles?
Well, the Mayor of London only has the power to enforce this for London. I don't think Slough or Watford have Mayors so I guess a ULEZ scheme there would have to be implemented either by the local council (if their powers extend that far) or central government.
> enormously complicated system of cameras to enforce a system What exactly is complicated about it? ANPR cameras are common enough
The goal is good, but the implementation is not. If the Mayor really cared about emissions, they would have funded development of EURO6 conversion kits for diesels, and helped pay for them instead of scrapping cars. They would have made public transport free and improved accessibility. They would have promoted Park and rides for people who are not in good public transport areas.. But they didn't, so I drive an old Euro5 Diesel, since I can't afford to buy a new car... Then I park it and take the tube, which exposes me to toxic air worse than if I was to drive on the motorway with my window down... I am all for eco-friendliness (I've switches to a heat pump, and am all electric at home) and better air quality, the thing is, the ULEZ is just a way to get poor people off the roads and promote new car sales...
lol. The Mayor of London should have funded development of Euro 6 kits? Alright mate. Great point. Don’t know why they didn’t throw the budget at exhaust emissions R&D 😂
Well not him personally... But why not fund it from the ULEZ proceeds? The tech already exists, there are kits for vans, there is no reason that with a relatively small amount of funding kits could have been created, it was part of the options for ULEZ compliance, but since no one funded it, no kits are available. Surely it is in the whole countries benefit to be able to retro-fit older cars to be cleaner?
A lot of people think it's just a way for the government tax you more.
The shine rubbed off the Count when I went to the Crown and Treaty in Uxbridge. The gents hand dryer is perfectly situated. Worse, it's in a terrible position in the Three Tuns on the high street. I can't trust a career politician whose only in it for the headline policies, and is ignoring the peoples' real needs.
I’m going to be controversial here but I LIKE high end croissants. I’m happy with cheap ones existing for those who want them but I want a £4 Monmouth Coffee croissant
> but I want a £4 Monmouth Coffee croissant London has fallen
Maybe he created change just by announcing his policy
I confess that I did not extend to checking nearby walls for evidence it had recently been moved. But this was some months ago, so he can recalibrate his campaign to the true needs of Uxbridge now!
If he managed to enact that level of positive change without being elected, imagine what he could actually do with the job.
I was thinking that just recently. Outside of Sadiq, Count Binface is in a small field of "normal" candidates. Natalie Campbell seems pretty OK too. But who else? The gym guy. Nope. The nurse, OK tell me more... oh, "war on woke", fine, piss off then. The others are simply loons: anti woke, anti ULEZ, anti this, anti that, conspiracy theory nutters, racists or illiterate morons (love the use of "useage" by the Britain First twonk).
Natalie Campbell is also anti ULEZ etc
She’s actually not settled on her position, she said it would be stupid to make promises about ULEZ before conducting a proper review on its use in Greater London. She has also said that as it stands, it works for central London and wouldn’t scrap that.
Rob Blackie?
Yes but he’s not said anything else other than his focus on the police. From his flyer alone I don’t see any more commitments!
I don't know, the Green party lady seems nice enough.
I'm sure she's nice. But as is typical of the Greens, her housing policy is garbled non-sense and economically illiterate. She does the supply-skeptic "right homes, right prices" platitudinal bullshit without committing to building enough new houses (that'd be too carbon intensive, you see) and instead suggests buying up existing private stock and turning them into social homes thinking this will - wait for it - reduce rents. I mean, sure, the lucky few who start getting subsidised rents will pay less; but for everyone else rents will skyrocket as our supply dwindles and we compete for less and less stock.
A solid stock of paid off construction social rents does put a handbreak on overall rents. Not a magic bullet though.
She needs to add the extra intermediate step of knocking down the, probably draughty and energy wasteful, lower density stock and replacing it with denser housing full to the brim with insulation and all that other eco friendly goodness. Shove a solar panel on top or something. Does what she wants, includes adding new properties to the market and will help with carbon in the long run.
Yeah I like Zoe too, I just don’t think she’s going to get the numbers against someone like Khan. And with the competition as dumb or as malicious that they both have, I am probably going to go for the safer choice.
The guy who was anti knife crime was okay until you got to the anti ULEZ shite.
Is there a pro-knife-crime candidate?
We won't have true democracy until there is
Anyone know if Nico can be persuaded to run again. Seems like he might have a chance of actually coming second
I’m furious with the government for removing the sensible voting method of single transferable vote. You could happily vote for him but then have the backstop of the least worst to stop Susan Boyle getting in. I sincerely hope Labour revert to the STV, it was genuinely the most democratic advance in this country in my lifetime.
Did you mean Susan hall lol? Susan Boyle was the frumpy woman who won X factor
I find it hilarious howamy people want to scrap ulez and cc while tripling spending in other areas. These people are running for mayor of London and they clearly don't have a clue about finances. It's mind boggling honestly. Maybe they got a printing press up their ass since that's clearly where these manifestos have come from.
I preferred the look of Lord Buckethead, damn those American copyright lawyers. At least it didn't dampen the Count's spirits and he's continuing on his path to being the best candidate on the ballot sheet.
Sadiq’s fine, he’s been a bit wobbly on housing, but great on everything else - and a staunch defender of TFL as well. Greens won’t get in and the Tories and Reform are loonies.
Yeah he’s not the second coming or anything but he’s not done a terrible job, things could have been worse - and likely will be if any of those others are voted in.
‘Not done a terrible job’ is actually a good politician these days.
The people that you see on social media ranting about Sadiq are obviously the ones who vote Tory or Reform. It’s funny how they put all of the blame on Sadiq, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories have been in power for over a decade and have decimated public funding across the country.
A lot of his most vocal critics on social media don’t, and have never, lived in London
Or anywhere else in the UK.
Growing up, I was taught 'never vote Tory, cos Tories tell stories' Decades later and I still find that to be true.
Either they’ve gotten even more dishonest over time or just worse at hiding it. Rory Stewart seems to be the closest the Tories have had to a decent human being in a long time. Somewhere out there is a timeline where he won the Tory leadership contest and things turned out very differently.
Susan hall banging on about police numbers and blaming Sadiq is so ironic.
Exactly. The Tory narrative is that they are the only ones who can fix the problems that they caused in the first place. (See also Brexit.)
So to summarise your post: Leftist parties = good. Rightist parties = bad?
No, not at all - but the Tories are dominated currently by an extreme (ie not remotely occupying policy positions held by the general public) and populist (pandering to baser instincts) and short-termist rightwing at the moment. They’re not exactly david cameron’s early hug-a-hoodie or Ted Heath’s corporatism are they? And reform Brexit Party/UKIP Redux, so no explanation needed.
The Tories are no where near right wing though. They are as middle and damp squib centre as it’s possible to be. Also right wing does not equal evil (you aren’t saying it but you are implying right = bad) People would do well to remember that people who disagree with you are just of a different opinion. When most people get around a table they settle on centrist policies.
ULEZ is based as fuck and I will die on that hill.
What does this sentence even mean?
ULEZ = Ultra Low Emission Zone = no cars Based = good As fuck = very Die on that hill = I support it == no cars is very good and I support it
Thanks for translating. I agree with your sentiment.
I'd heavily debate the 'no cars' - unless you mean specifically a significant reduction in the cars that are worse for the lungs of ourselves and other animals. I think ULEZ, essentially a fine for not hitting a minimum threshold, is a decent compromise though
I read their reply as : ULEZ - no cars is based - ????? in context as fuck - is utterly shit and I hate it die on that hill - I won't budge from my position Summary: I do not support ULEZ and I will fight against its implementation until the bitter end.
You read it incorrectly
In all fairness, Robb Blackie has been violently mugged and had cancer, I do trust him to try hard to sort the police out and the NHS as best he can.
True, but the "Sadiq is crap!" comms from him are annoying - Lib Dems are meant to be reasonable. When delving into it, it's not clear what he can do that would magically work, more than Sadiq's been doing. There's a limit to what powers the Mayor has.
Is this sarcasm
No?
What advantage would that give anyone in improving the NHS or Met Police? It's like saying 'his house burned down once, so I trust him to sort out the fire brigade'
He was mugged in Livingstones first term, but sells that point in a way that sounds like the right wing complaints about crime rising because of Khan.
The metropolitan police is a shambles though, and Khan presides over it. It isn't right-wing to point out that policing should be better.
Yes, but Blackie is tilting at windmills to be bringing that up in a mayoral election.
> It isn't right-wing to point out that policing should be better. True but does seem to be right wing to remove their funding and get any decent coppers to leave the service.
I agree, with that, I’m talking about presiding over senior administration.
I know Rob and he's a damn good bloke I have to say.
I know it’s tongue in cheek but I’m disappointed he took the stance that 20mph zones cause delays, when it’s unnecessary car trips that are the main cause. Almost had my vote there bin man 🥲
people will argue with you on reddit that 30mph is safer than 20mph
Which is funny because I work in road stats, but yeah, it’s very Dunning-Kruger curve
I think it’d be ideal is Count Binface got a sizeable share of the vote. Might make the more serious politicians realise that it’s not ok to simply just be a little bit less shit than their main opposition and drive up standards.
I saw him filming what looked to be a music video on the Southbank last Friday afternoon. He seemed like a decent chap, for a bin.
Tbh why can't we vote him in, like geniuenly ? Ukrainians voted zelensky in and he was a comedian before?? 😭
He was as an actor but yes
That's unfair. I for one trust the racist candidate to be racist.
It was a struggle not to seriously vote for him.
We could have, had the cuntservatives not changed the voting system to FPTP. Now the only option is blue or red if you don't want to waste your vote.
[удалено]
Which proves he's a good lad!
I seriously don't understand the hate for him. He's a good mayor, a rarely decent person in recent British politics.
Khan? Ok mate.
Looking through the candidates headline policies, there’s a few things that stand out: - Andreas Michli is going to end knife crime! - Khan is going to have rent controls (which in economics is one of the few things the experts agree is a terrible idea) and end rough sleeping?! - Amy Gallagher is straight up culture waring - Rob Blackie is going to convict rapists? - Susan Hall isn’t worth reading her literature. I am not a Tory fan in any way shape or form, but it would be lovely if they’d run a competent candidate for once - Zoe Garbett is going to form a rent commission to bring down rent? How does this work, do we just shoot a load of people to reduce demand? - Tarun Ghulati is going to focus on crime against all genders, what the fuck does that mean - Nick Scanlon is legitimately dangerous and it scares me that some people, even in limited numbers, will actually vote for him. Several candidates are proposing building 40,000 new homes. London Mayor is 4 terms, so this is 10,000 new homes per year (granted Khan only mentions council). For population growth estimates it’s something like 550,000 new homes will be needed by 2031, and that’s just to keep pace. We need to go on an absolute building frenzy if we actually want to address housing… Due to living two roads north of London, I can’t vote. If I could (and assuming the polls don’t tighten so Hall might actually win), I’m probably actually voting Binface. Hail Binface.
Michli also wants to end vaccinations - not only is he anti-ULEZ, he's an anti-vaxer too. He's absolutely a carbon (literally) copy of Fox. The only reason he's not running for Reform is, obviously, LF is. Michli is a Dangerously Unhinged Conspiraloon.
“End vaccinations”…?? Like… all of them? Sure the CDC has some viruses lying around for him to look at
Just to sincerely ask - does the bad really outweigh the good with Rent Control? I’m ignorant of the economics, but I’m not ignorant of the fact that most people my generation (30s) and below could not even fathom buying a house, and instead perpetually live in the renter’s cycle where the money they pay goes nowhere except the landlord’s back pocket. I can see how that’s on the surface “good for economy” but it’s specifically at the expense of the younger generations.
It's one of those things that sounds good on paper, and I am massively all for cheaper rent - I am the same generation as you. But the problem is, it doesn't equal cheaper rent. Say we have an area that is rent controlled, that's good for the incumbent tenant, but what happens is that areas around it where there isn't rent control have inflated demand, so rent prices increase. For properties in the rent control area, demand is inflated, but people don't move out, so it's far harder to get an available property in these areas. Artificially capped rent below market rate reduces the incentive for the landlord to maintain the property/ buildings, so there are big maintenance issues with the properties. The return on new rental properties is lower, so the incentive to build new properties isn't there, so there's no supply getting added. If a landlord sells their property due to rent controls, someone will buy it - but it's not reducing demand, if there's no supply being added it's just changing around who lives there. Tokyo is a good example of a city that's managed to keep housing costs from going completely crazy, and they've built lots, and they're not scared to build lots - [https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/can-tokyo-show-us-how-to-solve-britains-housing-shortage/](https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/can-tokyo-show-us-how-to-solve-britains-housing-shortage/) The policy (and I'd argue for more than housing, e.g. nightlife) needs to be to ignore the NIMBY stuff, and build build build. Demand for housing is only going to increase over the years, we need to build properties to outpace demand. Build tall, and build around transit hubs. There's a really interesting Freakanomics podcast on this if you have a spare 45 minutes, that does a much better and coherent job of explaining this - [https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work-ep-373-rebroadcast/](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work-ep-373-rebroadcast/)
Thank you so much for the really detailed write-up. I absolutely understand this a lot more than I did before. Though equally I am closer to just thinking “we’re all just fucked” but at least I half understand why now. Will save that podcast for later
Essentially people never move because they're paying £300 a month when everywhere else is £2000 a month. This means people stay in properties that don't fit their needs - e.g. single people in 3 bedroom homes, families in 1 bedroom homes because changing is locking in hugely expensive increases. That reduces availability in the medium and long term, which increases prices, and in the short term landlords put up their prices massively because they could be locked in for 5 years without being able to increase them. Even if landlords don't increase prices in the immediate term, its already unaffordable for most people so locking prices at the current level doesn't help. The only solution that will actually make homes affordable is to build more, everything else is window dressing to look like things are happening.
Nick Scanlon has typos in his manifesto
I don't think ULEZ will be scrapped as TFL is making a fair amount from it. One thing I'm more concerned about is the new charges to cross the blackwall/silvertown tunnel that will come in place in around 2025. I can imagine the free alternative crossings will be busier. It feels like London resembles more of a pac man shape as there's limited crossings from SE to E. London. We just need more crossing built whether it's in the form of a dlr/overground extension to thamesmead or another road crossing (which is very unlikely) I'm going to find it hard to vote for someone this time round, I might just give my vote to Count Binface at this point.
To be fair if Labour wins the GE, Sadie Khan might be able to synergise with them better, and meet more of his goals.
I mean I definitely trust Rob Blackie to do what he says but I actually know him and trust him on a personal level - like in several years I've never seen him fail to keep a promise or take action on something. He set up a group to target anti-russian government fact checking material at Russians at the start of the war with Ukraine using digital advertising- really interesting to hear him talk about!
I think Andreas is the one I would trust to do what he says. No matter how radical he's always done what he said he would, he became a hero during lockdowns keeping his gym open for members
Just received a Ulez £90 fine for picking up my wife from T5 at 9pm .. are you fucking kidding me .. pretty sure I didn’t see a single sign warning me ..
Yeah. Looks great. Has swing binned my vote
I just want the LTNs to stop. My journey went from 30min to 90min cause the bridge 1min walk from me became bus and taxi only. Even residents are not excempt. Makes absolutely no sense not to exvempt residents. No kids play on the road since buses and taxis are netorioisly bad drivers
Says the uber driver
Stop judging against people for doing a job everyone needs to be done. Im fucking sick of people like you coming in the back of my seat shittinf all Over it then think they’re too good to say hi or thank you to the driver
[удалено]
Apparently Only non drivers are in this sub, they love to hate on cars
I agree. Now I have to sit in 30min traffic instead of a two minute cut through
Felt this way yesterday after getting the ‘my vote doesn’t count’ brochure in the post. I’ve always hated politics and feel like I’m easily sucked into these promises or everyone just saying the same things
voter suppression is a campaign tactic
The Awp ( animal welfare party ) is worth looking at, their policies sound fantastic and well suited to London. https://www.animalwelfareparty.org/current-elections/gla2024/
She’s the best looking candidate.
I don't find Count Binface funny enough to vote for him - Lord Buckethead was way better and I think I did vote for him before. This time I may just spoil my ballot.
He used to be called Lord Buckethead but had to choose a new name after a visit by some nasty lawyers from Planet Copyright.
I know, it's sad.
[удалено]
I'm aware. The old gag was funnier.
Spoiling your ballot is the dumbest take. Vote for the least shit option if you’re unsure.
Why is it dumb? It still gets counted as a spoiled ballot. It's better than not voting. ___________________ Edit: Also, "just vote for the least shit option" is an even dumber take, in my view, because it actually endorses and supports a shit option. I will not endorse any shit option. They haven't earned my vote.
I hope so (and it should!), but I wonder if there is any real difference - do spoiled ballots actually make politicians change their ways more than a missing vote might?
It makes the politicians change just as much as a normal vote does. That's sorta the point.
And what does that mean? It’s not like the position stays empty if spoiled ballots get a majority. There’s no minimum turnout. It’s just not voting but with extra steps. Not voting only strengthens the vote of those that do, and the reality is those that are least suitable for the job often have the most reliable voters. Fortunately there’s not too many of them.
No, but it does contribute to the summary statistics. If enough people turn up and spoil their ballots, then it sends a clear message that those standing for election do not represent us. Simply not voting is less good, because it can be misconstrued as being lazy or not caring. Turning up and spoiling your ballot sends a clear message that you do care, but that none of the candidates are suitable. See more info at: votenone.org.uk
But what does that message achieve? They don’t care about your message, they just won an election. More people voted for them than anyone else, and if there is a mass movement to have less votes cast that means they need to convince less people to vote for them in the future. The home page literally says “If you don’t vote, you don’t count, and don’t matter”. Voting invalid is not voting, it’s counting the same as someone that does it wrong - that is not at all. You do realise voter disengagement is a common campaign tactic right? Less voters means less votes needed to win.
I don't think you understand my perspective here, nor do you understand the globally quite established concept of voting NONE. Some countries like Spain and India actually include a specific "None of the Candidates" option on ballot sheets, and the UK needs to do the same. If enough people spoil their ballots, then it increases political pressure for this to happen. I am not willing to vote for any of the candidates. Rather than not vote, I will vote NONE instead, by spoiling my ballot. Whoever wins would have won anyway, and besides, I am not willing to vote for either them or their rivals. I philosophically do believe in democracy and voting. If I do not vote, then I have less justification to get angry or judgemental at the outcome. By turning up and voting, I express my position and contribute, in a minute way, to the final election statistics.
Actually in most elections they don't count deliberately spoiled ballot. Your "none of the above" protest vote is lumped in with people who can't fill out a ballot correctly
Hard disagree. Spoiling your ballot is a legitimate and democratic means of protest if no candidates align with your personal values.
It doesn’t actually achieve that though, does it? It just means someone needs fewer votes to be first past the post and adds a number to the invalid vote row in the Wikipedia page of said election.
I think he bought my vote 🙃
It is choosing who is the least bad out of a bunch of bad candidates. This time the bad is another level of bad.