Demitri_C Posted May 11, 2021 Author Share Posted May 11, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Indeed. Traffic on the major roads instead of residential streets is the whole **** point. It's annoying if it directly impacts you, but inconveniencing motorists is also completely according to plan. Easy to say that when you are not stuck in every day. I gurantee you would be opposed to it if you lived here. 75% of residents were against them and the council still implemented them. Edited May 11, 2021 by Demitri_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Easy to say that when you are not stuck in every day. I gurantee you would be opposed to it if you lived here. 75% of residents were against them and the council still implemented them. On the contrary, I live on a small street with no street markings, no lights, no crossings, no traffic calming measures, that gets turned in to a major through road between 5 and 7 every day since Google Maps calculated it could start saving people a few seconds cutting through between main roads. I'd bloody love a LTN around here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 11, 2021 Author Share Posted May 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: On the contrary, I live on a small street with no street markings, no lights, no crossings, no traffic calming measures, that gets turned in to a major through road between 5 and 7 every day since Google Maps calculated it could start saving people a few seconds cutting through between main roads. I'd bloody love a LTN around here. Can we swap id lovw that! Why the feck you have no street markings though is bizarre. Has it always been like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 11, 2021 Author Share Posted May 11, 2021 Also at @Davkaus although we dont agree about LTNS i can see why you are in favour of them. They are not designed for the area i live in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 11, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 11, 2021 32 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Can we swap id lovw that! Why the feck you have no street markings though is bizarre. Has it always been like that? Because we can't afford paint in the provinces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 46 minutes ago, Davkaus said: On the contrary, I live on a small street with no street markings, no lights, no crossings, no traffic calming measures, that gets turned in to a major through road between 5 and 7 every day since Google Maps calculated it could start saving people a few seconds cutting through between main roads. I'd bloody love a LTN around here. The road my folks live on is similar. No footpaths or markings and only one streetlight (paid for by the residents of the village) yet its used as a rat-run between 2 small towns as it saves about 30 seconds over the main road that goes around the village. My folks would love a LTN there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 Quote @bickster Is this your council? Liverpool City Council: Staff at council feared speaking out By Judith Moritz North of England correspondent Published 6 hours ago Share image captionMax Caller told the BBC council staff were offered the chance to give evidence to his team on street corners Staff felt intimidated about speaking out on failings at a city council and there were "credible" fears for their safety if they did, an inspector says. Max Caller told the BBC his report into problems at Liverpool City Council left out the names of those who spoke to him because they worried about reprisals. The report was published in March, and a police investigation continues. The council has said it accepts all the report's findings and it was one of the most difficult periods in its history. Setting out its response to the government, the council said it would work with commissioners appointed to oversee parts of the authority. "Although this is one of the most difficult periods in the council's recent history, it is also an opportunity to reset the council as a leading local authority," it said. "It provides a platform to shine a light on, and remove, practices and behaviours of both officers and members which have no place in our council." 'Serious people' Government inspectors were sent to investigate the council after five men were arrested by police investigating allegations of fraud, bribery, corruption, misconduct in public office and witness intimidation at the council. They included then Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson, who has since stood down. All the men deny the allegations. Mr Caller's review found a dysfunctional council, which frequently did deals that did not provide good value for taxpayers. However, the subsequent report did not include a list of the people who had spoken to the inspection team, which is highly unusual. In his first full interview since the release of the report, Mr Caller told BBC News the need to protect the identity of council staff "really weighed quite heavily on what we did". Staff "felt that if they came forward and were named, there would be retribution", Mr Caller said, adding: "I came to the conclusion that to protect the individuals I could publish no names." He described it as "serious people" who had "serious concerns", who were "seriously worried about the outcomes if they were identified as coming forward". image captionMr Caller said some staff were "seriously worried about the outcomes if they were identified as coming forward" To reassure staff they could talk to his team in confidence, Mr Caller made it known they didn't have to meet him inside the council building, where he was running his investigation. He said: "I made it clear to people that we would meet them on street corners. That we would meet them on Zoom. That they didn't have to be seen coming into any meeting room where I was at." The BBC has also spoken to council officials who don't want to be identified. They said during the years in question, there was a "small cabal of people" ruling the roost at the council. They talked of insidious intimidation, of pressure being put on some staff to make questionable decisions, and of colleagues leaving on the grounds of stress. The government inspection ran alongside a Merseyside Police criminal investigation. It meant Mr Caller wasn't able to publish all of his findings publicly, for fear of prejudicing those proceedings. But he was able to supply the police with material he had uncovered. Mr Caller is now helping the council work on its recovery plan. He believes there is a hard road ahead, with further setbacks likely, and more revelations to "creep out of the woodwork". But he says he is optimistic the council will get back on its feet and "signal that it's committed to being back in the mainstream of local government". The council said it would take forward his recommendation to move away from annual elections and to all-out elections every four years. And it said it was considering a motion to bring forward the date of the proposed referendum on a city mayor from 2023 to 2022. The measures will be debated at an extraordinary meeting of the city council next week. Click It sounds a lot like mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 12, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Click It sounds a lot like mine! no, not mine, I live in Sefton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 Just now, bickster said: no, not mine, I live in Sefton The above one sounds like a absolute shit show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 12, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2021 Just now, Demitri_C said: The above one sounds like a absolute shit show It is, has been for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 32 minutes ago, bickster said: It is, has been for years. HE'S GOT YOU NOW! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 I see bliars starting his attacks on labour again. This time calling them "the woke left" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 ‘it’s one more job, I’ve got a man on the inside, says its easy money...one more job and we can all retire, debts paid. So, you in Frankie?’ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: I see bliars starting his attacks on labour again. This time calling them "the woke left" That's not what he's saying. Quote “Keir seems sensible but not radical. He lacks a compelling economic message. And the cultural message, because he is not clarifying it, is being defined by the ‘woke’ left, whose every statement gets cut-through courtesy of the right.” His point is that the leadership vacuum left by Starmer is allowing more fringe members of the party to define what the party stands for. Edited May 12, 2021 by Davkaus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 12, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: His point is that the leadership vacuum left by Starmer is allowing more fringe members of the party to define what the party stands for. Which is of course where he's wrong. The leadership vacuum left by Starmer and his fringe team is allowing the members of the party to define what the party stands for (and has always stood for). Which is of course not what Blair stands for and is therefore something he considers as wrong. Now would seem an ideal time for Mr Blair to return to the middle east, perhaps at night in a high-vis vest. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Interestingly, that clarification makes Blair's point just as dumb, but in a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Interestingly, that clarification makes Blair's point just as dumb, but in a different way. 4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Which is of course where he's wrong. Just to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with him, I just think if we're going to start beating the god-bothering war criminal with a stick, it may as well be for what he actually said. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 32 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Just to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with him, I just think if we're going to start beating the god-bothering war criminal with a stick, it may as well be for what he actually said. This is the least of the things he needs to ne beaten with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 If you're after something to beat Blair with, this seems a pretty good one. He destroyed Labour's popularity. This is nowhere near as simple as I'm making out and I don't have time write a thesis but it's just a point that seems to be ignored by a lot of people. Labour's polling with John Smith as leader (July 1992-July 1994) had a steady increase (low 40s to high 40s): With the 1997 general election, the final popular vote points in 1997 were Labour 42%, Tories 30% and Lib Dems 17%. Most marginals are either Labour / Tory or Lib Dem / Tory. Almost nowhere are there Lib Dem / Labour marginals. So the Lib Dems split the Tory vote and allowed the 1997 landslide. Without the Lib Dem popularity, the election would have been roughly similar to 2017. When Blair became leader (July 1994) the popularity of the party was steadily rising until the general election in May 1997 where it then dipped. The initial increase in support after the election for Labour under Blair lasted about 6 months and gradually reduced under him until he resigned in 2007, leaving the Tories polling 10 points ahead. I'd argue that all Blair knows how to do is win a general election off the back of someone else's work and fortuitous circumstances then gradually bleed support leaving the party electorally unpopular. But the simple soundbites of 'he won 3 general elections' cuts through. The context doesn't. This is the polling of Labour v Tories for the entirety of Blair's leadership. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 13, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 13, 2021 1 hour ago, darrenm said: He destroyed Labour's popularity. He damaged it hugely with doing War, for sure - but beyond that, I don't think you have much cause to make the claim. I mean I can't see the whole post (due to work blocking some of it) but the graph - Labour ends it higher than when it started it. They also end it above the tories, instead of below them, and don't drop below 42% (main line). They'd settle for having that "destroyed" popularity now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts