|
Borisbus inching forward?
On Jun 19, 8:58*pm, wrote:
And Stalin wasn't exactly fond of Hitler. Just because 1 evil person or g= roup hates another doesn't give the former any more moral high ground than the latter. So presumably you'd have voted Churchill out for meeting with Stalin? That was an expedient arrangement to prevent the annihilation of europe. Churchill had little choice. Couple of slight differences - ken livingstone wasn't a prime minister fighting a war, Qaradawi has no way of preventing al quaeda doing anything and being a hypocrite its unlikely anyone on either side would listen to him anyway so therefor the whole exercise was pointless with livingstone yet again grandstanding with some fairly unpleasent people just to get noticed. You seem to be using 'hypocrite' to mean 'person you don't like'. Qaradawi's views are consistent, although I disagree with them: he believes that the Israeli settler population is directly committing war crimes against the Palestinians [which is true - settling civilians in occupied areas is banned under the Geneva convention] and therefore a legitimate military target. At the same time, he believes that terrorism against people who aren't committing war crimes is bad, wrong and un-Islamic. He's an extremely popular figure among the hardline end of Muslims - so yes, of course people listen to him, and it's likely that his words have deterred militant Muslims here and abroad from becoming terrorists. Its good to see you're as biased as all the rest of the political polemicists. I wonder if you'd be so sanguine about it if Boris invited a member of the jewish national front over for a public debate. Somehow I think not. Not entirely sure what the Jewish National Front is - but if there was a small but genuine problem in the UK with disaffected Jewish kids drifting into extremist forms of Judaism, and one form of extremist Judaism supported blowing me up on the Tube, while the other form of extremist Judaism condemned blowing me up on the Tube, then damn right I'd want Boris to engage with the leaders of the second group. (yes, even if they also supported Israel's war crimes in the occupied territories, which is a fair parallel to Qaradawi's support of suicide bombers in the occupied territories) -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Borisbus inching forward?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Tony Polson wrote:
"Richard J." wrote: Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central area where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue. I don't really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by having a rear platform. The whole thing seems to be an ill-justified populist gesture. ... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist! An ill-justified populist jester, even. tom -- They didn't have any answers - they just wanted weed and entitlement. |
Borisbus inching forward?
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:12:33 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: Either way, there would then be an opportunity to give suitable warnings and/or spurn any really dangerous locations for opening the doors at, which a permanently open platform wouldn't allow for. Or you deal with the infrastructure/enforcement issue that London *still* has (Oxford Street is a good example[1]) so it isn't inconvenient having to use stops. [1] The stop layout, in relation to the road and what buses stop where, is confusing and illogical. This wasn't a problem in RM days as you didn't use the stops anyway, but now you do it's a pain. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Borisbus inching forward?
On 20 June, 22:40, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:12:33 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: Either way, there would then be an opportunity to give suitable warnings and/or spurn any really dangerous locations for opening the doors at, which a permanently open platform wouldn't allow for. Or you deal with the infrastructure/enforcement issue that London *still* has (Oxford Street is a good example[1]) so it isn't inconvenient having to use stops. [1] The stop layout, in relation to the road and what buses stop where, is confusing and illogical. *This wasn't a problem in RM days as you didn't use the stops anyway, but now you do it's a pain. There are many places in London where stops had to be moved and swapped to accommodate bendy buses on certain routes. Presumably they'll be able to swap back to a more sensible arrangement as routes debendify. |
Borisbus inching forward?
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:40:37PM +0000, Richard J. wrote:
I don't really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by having a rear platform. Every passenger who can get on or off *between* stops is one who doesn't have to do so at a bus stop. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing in the English language doesn't mean it should be done |
Borisbus inching forward?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:49:39PM +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Well obviously if he was in power by means other than democratic election then he /would/ be a dictator! Obviously that isn't the case, so perhaps "not-a-dictator" would be a more helpful description. It is possible for someone to be elected and to then become a dictator. Churchill's /History of the Second World War/ contains several pages of him worrying about whether some of the emergency powers the government granted itself had transformed the UK into a dictatorship. -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness Suffer the little children to come unto me, as their buying habits are most easily influenced. -- Marketroid Jesus |
Borisbus inching forward?
|
Borisbus inching forward?
David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was really no choice. Sorry, who approved of Tony Blair? Remind me of Boris and Ken's respective positions on the Iraq War for a moment, will you? tom |
Borisbus inching forward?
On 26 June, 11:47, Tom Barry wrote:
David Cantrell wrote: Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was really no choice. Sorry, who approved of Tony Blair? *Remind me of Boris and Ken's respective positions on the Iraq War for a moment, will you? tom When Ken decided that he needed New Labour's resources for his second campaign, he rejoined and became born-again New Labour. That's got to be a stronger statement than simply staying in Labour through inertia. Also, from that point onwards, he ceased expressing political opinions on most things, restricting his pronouncements to things like reliability of buses, encouraged strike-breaking, ceased appearing at anti-war rallies etc. Voting with his feet, basically. |
Borisbus inching forward?
On Jun 26, 12:00*pm, MIG wrote: On 26 June, 11:47, Tom Barry wrote: David Cantrell wrote: Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was really no choice. Sorry, who approved of Tony Blair? *Remind me of Boris and Ken's respective positions on the Iraq War for a moment, will you? When Ken decided that he needed New Labour's resources for his second campaign, he rejoined and became born-again New Labour. *That's got to be a stronger statement than simply staying in Labour through inertia. Get the history right at least. He left the Labour party after failing to get selected to be the Labour Mayoral candidate in 2000 - but that was the result of a total stitch-up of the selection process by the Labour leadership. Leaving the party you've been a member of for your whole political life is hardly inertia. He spoke of wanting to rejoin the Labour party *even before* he'd won the first ever election - this story is from Friday 28 April 2000, less than a week before the first Mayoral election on Thursday 4 May: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...yor/729269.stm His first attempt to rejoin the party was rejected in the summer of 2002 - his application... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2075257.stm ....and the NEC's rejection... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2145796.stm He was eventually successful in rejoining the party in January 2004, before going on to be selected as their candidate ion the 2004 election a month later: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3452363.stm So he wanted to rejoin Labour long before the second election campaign. And most London Labour activists and members wanted him to be the Labour candidate in '04 - indeed, a great number of them wanted him as the candidate the first time round in 2000, but the stitch-up excluded him. Also, from that point onwards, he ceased expressing political opinions on most things, restricting his pronouncements to things like reliability of buses, encouraged strike-breaking, ceased appearing at anti-war rallies etc. Not true. March '05, calling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a "war criminal": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4319879.stm February '05, ignoring the PM, Tony Blar, and many other senior Labour people who were strongly urging him to apologise for the "German war criminal" jibe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4269979.stm September '05 - ok, so it was a statement read out by Kate Hudson of the CND, but Livingstone voiced (or had voiced) his views on Iraq at an anti-war protest in London: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4275542.stm (was he perhaps away on business, I dunno, I've googled but failed to discover more) The 'encouragement' of strike breaking, as you put it, showed that he wasn't in the pockets of the unions. Voting with his feet, basically. Livingstone always made clear that he was a Labour man, and justified going it alone as an independent in 2000 by referring to the strenuous efforts made by the Labour leadership to exclude him (and he was expelled, rather than resigned his member ship, of the Labour party in 2000). The idea he could carry on standing as an independent candidate in future elections is hopeful, to say the least - most commentators appear to agree that Mayoral candidates need a party machine behind them to be a success, and continually running as an independent is not really feasible. His election in 2000 as an independent candidate was the result of special circumstances, specifically those of his dodgy exclusion from being the party's Mayoral candidate. The other thing that people continually fail to take proper account of is the fact that Livingstone was 'back in the fold' he was able to get a far better deal out of central government than were he to have remained an independent - for example, TfL gained the ability to borrow on the money markets in summer 2004 which enabled them to fund the ELLX project, as detailed in this Mayoral press release - note that Ken is hardly being complementary about rail privatisation and by implication the government's policy on the railways (note that by this time, saying such things was no longer simply just a criticism of the Tories and their pre-97 actions): http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...releaseid=3903 Livingstone came to an accommodation with the 'way of the world' - markets, private finance, the City etc - he certainly always said "this is not the world as I would have made it", but instead stated that he was being a pragmatist and doing the best that he could given the way the world worked. From a transport point of view, I think he was very effective, though my broad support for Livingstone was certainly not without reservations. But he wasn't ever "born-again New Labour". |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk