Recent content by DynamicSpirit

You obviously haven't thought very hard then - because I can think of a perfectly logical reason for why the Government would have wanted to introduce the poll tax that doesn't involve imagining some kind of bad faith by the Government or some strange desire to attack lots of voters: The rating...

Not quite sure what you mean there. I think it's true and not at all controversial that, once a bus has been scheduled and the timetable advertised, then the bus operator should make every reasonable effort to run every service in and according to the timetable, even if some services lose money...

I somewhat agree, though I think the council tax is on balance at least somewhat more progressive than the poll tax, since wealthier people do tend to live in more expensive homes. But like you, I do find it puzzling that the poll tax attracted so much opposition and demonstrations when it was...

I would say, yes. It's about half a mile as the crow flies, and there's enough stuff in between that you're never going to be able to do it in a straight line. Probably nearer 3/4 of a mile to get a workable above-ground route.

I guess it depends if the money used was donated in good faith on the basis that it would be used for campaigning. I'm not sure of the details of the law but that would sound to me close to fraud (and reminiscent of a certain Scottish campervan) if it was used for other purposes. At any rate...

Why is that a problem? If something is a good idea, then isn't it a good thing if the current Government adopt it, no matter what colour that Government is? Seems to me that if your aim in politics is to make the country better and help people, then you'll be only too happy for others to adopt...

I think that was true to some extent. But to be fair, the 'managed decline' was to a large extent inevitable through the 1960s, 70s and 80s because of the way the Governments of the time prioritised road-building and making it easier for people to drive everywhere, which combined with cars...

Agreed. Although you could solve that problem in principle by only designating trains 'intercity' over the sections of route where there are more local alternative trains. But like I say, would be difficult to do with the railway set up as it is today.

If we had a sensible fares system, I think the ideal solution would be - instead of all the different TOC-only tickets, to simply designate all trains as either local/regional/intercity, and charge a small premium for travelling on intercity trains. Similar to what I think used to be done years...

That's true, but you you would expect that if those pledges were firm commitments, then even in opposition, the leader of the party would be making at least some attempt to argue in favour of them in Parliament and in interviews etc.

Really? I'm sure I recall a long previous discussion on railforums about human rights in which it was being claimed repeatedly that the current human rights framework is designed to protect people from actions by Governments, not by other people - implying that you can't hold private...

It's a bit hard to tell for sure until we've seen Labour's election manifesto, but he seems to have been pretty quiet on supporting the abolition of tuition fees, full voting rights for EU nationals, a federal system to devolve powers, supporting common ownership of rail, mail, energy and...

The LibDem manifesto for London is here: https://www.londonlibdems.org.uk/robblackie/our-manifesto

If you mean, people coming from places between Marylebone and Harrow: I'd expect that for those people the quickest route to New Cross/New Cross Gate would still be: Bakerloo to Baker Street, Jubilee to Canada Water, Overground to New Cross (Gate) . The Bakerloop bus might give an edge for...

I would assume that's just sloppy journalism, combined with that journalists need snappy headlines for stories and 'smoking ban' is a lot snappier than 'ban on selling cigarettes to people born after a certain date'