- This topic has 891 replies, 64 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Topic
-
I posted an earlier version of this a while back – inspired to do update following THAT discussion about all things ULEZ.
The “manifesto”, in terms of transport, only mentions stopping HS2, but there’s plenty on the usual right-wing obsessions: Brexit, immigration, veterans and climate change. I had another look because I worry about the ongoing decline of the two main political parties.
If the Cons stay wedded to Brexit, then we will go into the next GE with all the widespread impoverishment Brexit has ushered in – not helped by Covid, Putin, etc. People generally vote according to their pockets. I don’t get Labour’s current position on Europe either, but let’s see how that evolves, and even the Cons may also evolve, or even pivot, but time is already running out for them.
Several roads now lead to the horrors of a further lurch to the right in this country. Let’s hope Labour get the GE landslide the polls are predicting – but we’re still at least a year out from the real campaigning beginning.
A cycling angle? With the Reform Party and its ilk, Facebook Steve and Nextdoor Dave attain real political influence. It’s not spelt out in the manifesto, but you can see where this is probably heading and what it is likely to mean for cycling. You can bet that this lot are very much “on the side of hard working drivers” etc.
As you all know, Dave’s going to “sort the traffic” and no doubt show them lazy planners how it’s done: Steve thinks the Council are corrupt, the police blinkered and is, if he can fit it in to his busy schedule he’s going to “teach them Lycra’s a thing or two.” It won’t concern him that his Mondeo is 3 months out of MoT or that Mrs Steve sometimes drives the kids in it uninsured.
As vulnerable road users, vulnerable people, we rely a great deal on the rule of law for protection. The rule of law means that we understand what the laws are, they are in general fair, and how they are applied and to whom is even-handed and consistent.
The fascist position is broadly the opposite – it’s all off-the-cuff to support today’s particular agenda – that’s why the Iain Duncan-Smith “happy to see ULEZ infra vandalised” comment is, as an example, so very worrying. In the Conservatives, here is a party happy to send signals to enable the mob to attack RNLI stations, beat up immigrants, shout at teachers, doctors etc.
This right-wing stuff works by allowing/enabling significant privileged groups to to think of themselves as the downtrodden underdog and here is a way to fight back. The pro Brexit campaign played on people’s ignorance, fears and prejudices exactly as this does.
It’s all about freedom, innit, less regulation, less tax burden, and damn the climate. There’s more polar bears now, so it’s fine. Let’s have open-cast coal mining, lithium mining and fracking. The section on climate change stumbles around like a Friday night drunk, trying to explain he wasn’t being racist to the barman – a denier position emerges, unsurprisingly.
In places, the mask really slips: “We must keep divisive woke ideologies such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender ideology out of the classroom.” – to be honest, I don’t even know what those two are.
The standard enemies are put up – the civil service, the BBC. Amid all the thrust and parry, there’s nothing about making a better, more inclusive and cohesive world to live in; arts, sports and culture don’t feature in this barstool view of the world: a dullard’s grim vision.
Don’t be a member of the wrong sort of minority would be my advice, should any of this come to pass.
-
David9694 wrote:
Starmer is 11 months in […] he’s condemning himself to one term and the party to a long period in the wilderness, along with the Tories if he doesn’t do something radical and distinct.Wait, what? Are you saying that the Tories new complaint will be that Starmer is going to be held responsible for them being in the wilderness? Isn’t that his job (and largely their fault)?
I think this commentor has a slightly odd take. I do agree that there’s little appetite for picking up old hot potatoes (Brexit) we’ve managed to drop – whether temporarily or not. I think that’s mostly for negative reasons e.g. the main parties saw that it blew up in Cameron’s face, hamstrung May etc. Even the Lib Dems – who aren’t likely to need to worry about actually implementing anything – have pushed the issue to “long-term”.
People have been complaining that politicians don’t have a “vision” and have “turned into managers” for most of my life (well … post – Thatcher. But perhaps they forget that she was quite the pragmatist on most issues – until she had made a decision that is, but then yes “the lady’s not for turning”).
Unless he’s championing such visionaries as … Boris “two columns” bluster Johnson, the Iron Weathervane, Rishi Sunk…?
Currently the big issue and biggest differences seem to be “how to handle Trump and the US that elected him … twice”. Reform: “attempt to ‘make Britain (or is it England?) great again’ so fast that he will see we’re as wild as he is”, Labour: “kiss the ring but hold your tongue” and the Conservatives: “bring up all his talking points … until we realise that even our members can’t stomach some of them”. Apologies – not sure where the Liberals / Greens stand (nor the regional parties).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.