Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[beesonthewhatnow]

They are scum, through and through.

You mean the same Tories who brought in Section 28. Just because they bow to public pressure and pass a few vote winning measures doesn't make them any less awful.

It’s perfectly possible to acknowledge something being a good thing, even if those doing it are on the wrong side elsewhere.

 

[nagapie]

It’s perfectly possible to acknowledge something being a good thing, even if those doing it are on the wrong side elsewhere.

But they're not doing it because they want to do a good thing, that is what I am acknowledging.

 

[nagapie]

Who's said they are ok?

" sometimes we agree with despicable people"
"even a stopped clock tells the right time twice"
"When I say Tory you say scum, etc etc"
The thread is full of this shit.

 

[teuchter]

I made mistake of assuming using references to a popular form of literature would be taken seriously. Sci Fi has always been about looking at social and political questions. It's also always been looked down as not serious literature.

The examples you give seem to deal with variations on the kind of world where a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia that is only accessible to the rich while the remainder of the population bear the brunt of devastating climate change, which I'd agree is a real danger and it's something we could end up with. Well, that's how some of the opposition to LTNs is trying to present them - exclusive areas for the rich to enjoy quite pollution free streets while everyone else deals with the pollution. I think that's nonsense but the fact that you offer these dystopian scifi worlds as relevant to the LTN debate suggests that you buy into some of that.

So is that the case - do you now buy into this version of what LTNs really are? You're often saying that you aren't against them in principle and you just want more consultation (whatever that actually means) but it feels like you are being drawn closer to some of the more extreme claims about what is fundamentally problematic about the LTN principle - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

[nagapie]

no one is saying they are ok

What was said is that we can think they're not completely awful because they haven't passed every awful law in the land such as capital punishment.

 

[teuchter]

" sometimes we agree with despicable people"
"even a stopped clock tells the right time twice"
"When I say Tory you say scum, etc etc"
The thread is full of this shit.

So... no-one's said they are "ok". Or does "despicable" actually mean "ok"?

 

[teuchter]

What was said is that we can think they're not completely awful because they haven't passed every awful law in the land such as capital punishment.

No, that's not what was said at all.

 

[nagapie]

The examples you give seem to deal with variations on the kind of world where a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia that is only accessible to the rich while the remainder of the population bear the brunt of devastating climate change, which I'd agree is a real danger and it's something we could end up with. Well, that's how some of the opposition to LTNs is trying to present them - exclusive areas for the rich to enjoy quite pollution free streets while everyone else deals with the pollution. I think that's nonsense but the fact that you offer these dystopian scifi worlds as relevant to the LTN debate suggests that you buy into some of that.

So is that the case - do you now buy into this version of what LTNs really are? You're often saying that you aren't against them in principle and you just want more consultation (whatever that actually means) but it feels like you are being drawn closer to some of the more extreme claims about what is fundamentally problematic about the LTN principle - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Regardless of what OneLambeth are saying, the idea that "world wehre a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia...brunt of devestating climae change" isn't a real danger or something we could end up with, it's already a reality all over the world.

 

[teuchter]

They are scum, through and through.

You mean the same Tories who brought in Section 28. Just because they bow to public pressure and pass a few vote winning measures doesn't make them any less awful.

Do you think that people should have avoided supporting same sex marriage, because of other stuff the Tories do/did?

Do you think "but it's the Tories who are pushing this through" would be a relevant point when discussing whether same sex marriage is a good thing in principle?

 

[nagapie]

So... no-one's said they are "ok". Or does "despicable" actually mean "ok"?

It does if you go on to say you agree with despicable people, yes.

 

[nagapie]

Do you think that people should have avoided supporting same sex marriage, because of other stuff the Tories do/did?

Do you think "but it's the Tories who are pushing this through" would be a relevant point when discussing whether same sex marriage is a good thing in principle?

I haven't said that people should be against LTNs, once again you fail to understand my point as you can only see yours. I am talking about not thinking that any Tory policies are passed for the greater good, which was where the discussion was at when I waded in.

 

[teuchter]

Regardless of what OneLambeth are saying, the idea that "world wehre a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia...brunt of devestating climae change" isn't a real danger or something we could end up with, it's already a reality all over the world.

Yes, this is true, and we are looking at decisions in light of whether they make this even worse or go some way to making it less bad.

 

[teuchter]

I haven't said that people should be against LTNs, once again you fail to understand my point as you can only see yours. I am talking about not thinking that any Tory policies are passed for the greater good, which was where the discussion was at when I waded in.

I don't see where anyone was even saying that Tory policies are passed for the greater good.

 

[nagapie]

In separate comments, Boris Johnson warned councils that he was serious about boosting active travel, saying that “trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work”.

“I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use,” the prime minister said. “And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is.”

bloke is a cunt, but he’s dead right about this.

I mean how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy of a government that has caused the needless deaths of thousands in so many ways and without seriously considering the actual endgame of this government and what they hope to gain from LTNs for themselves.

 

[teuchter]

I mean how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy of a government that has caused the needless deaths of thousands in so many ways and without seriously considering the actual endgame of this government and what they hope to gain from LTNs for themselves.

Seems to me like the c-word in that quote might be an indication of the extent to which alex_ considers BJ a "moral voice".

 

[liquidindian]

how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy

Alex does this, in a pretty blunt way.

 

[nagapie]

I don't see where anyone was even saying that Tory policies are passed for the greater good.

I have posted enough quotes supporting the Tories on this. I was merely stepping in to say that this is no reason to consider they have done something good because good is not good if for altruistic versions. I have even reposted a person making fun of the idea of the Tories as scum, like it's some outdated laugh at the Lefties. I honestly can't say any more if you've missed that.

 

[nagapie]

Seems to me like the c-word in that quote might be an indication of the extent to which alex_ considers BJ a "moral voice".

Quoting him and calling him right negates this.

 

[nagapie]

Yes, this is true, and we are looking at decisions in light of whether they make this even worse or go some way to making it less bad.

I am not against the LTNs as a way of reducing pollution, I was just pointing out that Gramsci's views are not dystopian, they are a reality for most of the developing world.

 

[Winot]

I mean how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy of a government that has caused the needless deaths of thousands in so many ways and without seriously considering the actual endgame of this government and what they hope to gain from LTNs for themselves.

That quote is absolutely relevant to the thread topic though isn’t it? I’m really confused here - are you saying Alex shouldn’t have quoted BJ, should have done so but not said he was right, or should have done so but with more caveats about BJ’s motivations?

 

[teuchter]

I am not against the LTNs as a way of reducing pollution,

It's quite shocking that you legitimise the Tories as a "moral voice" by agreeing with their claim that LTNs can reduce pollution.

 

[nagapie]

That quote is absolutely relevant to the thread topic though isn’t it? I’m really confused here - are you saying Alex shouldn’t have quoted BJ, should have done so but not said he was right, or should have done so but with more caveats about BJ’s motivations?

I'm saying that in the greater context of this thread and how it developed thereafter, see the other quotes I have put forward, yes, it needed more caveats or no quoting at all. Because it became part of a greater narrative for the Tories doing the right thing and I don't believe that.

 

[nagapie]

It's quite shocking that you legitimise the Tories as a "moral voice" by agreeing with their claim that LTNs can reduce pollution.

Now you're just being a dick to score points.
I don't legitimise them as a moral voice for pretending to support action on climate change, which I've said quite clearly already.

 

[Winot]

I'm saying that in the greater context of this thread and how it developed thereafter, see the other quotes I have put forward, yes, it needed more caveats or no quoting at all. Because it became part of a greater narrative for the Tories doing the right thing and I don't believe that.

I don’t think anyone here is likely to be hoodwinked into thinking the Tories are generally great just by reading a (caveated) quote about LTNs.

 

[nagapie]

I don’t think anyone here is likely to be hoodwinked into thinking the Tories are generally great just by reading a (caveated) quote about LTNs.

I've already reposted 3 other things people said in support of the Tories. I'm not saying they're saying they're generally great, these are your words and a far cry from what I have highlighted, I am objecting to them thinking the Tories are doing anything for the greater good by way of looking at the rest of their record on climate change or generally at taking care of the general population.

 

[Gramsci]

The examples you give seem to deal with variations on the kind of world where a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia that is only accessible to the rich while the remainder of the population bear the brunt of devastating climate change, which I'd agree is a real danger and it's something we could end up with. Well, that's how some of the opposition to LTNs is trying to present them - exclusive areas for the rich to enjoy quite pollution free streets while everyone else deals with the pollution. I think that's nonsense but the fact that you offer these dystopian scifi worlds as relevant to the LTN debate suggests that you buy into some of that.

So is that the case - do you now buy into this version of what LTNs really are? You're often saying that you aren't against them in principle and you just want more consultation (whatever that actually means) but it feels like you are being drawn closer to some of the more extreme claims about what is fundamentally problematic about the LTN principle - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Everything gets linked here to whether one is on one side or the other.

The hard line LTN side or One Lambeth. I don't belong to either.

My post was to show that dealing with climate change is political.

Sci Fi demonstrates possible scenarios. With nuanced look at them.

As the bigger picture keeps coming up here, I've resisted posting up on it before, I thought I'd post up how it's dealt with in fiction.

My view is that the original Brixton Liveable neighbourhood in depth promised consultation should have gone ahead. Any measures in pandemic should have been really temporary.

That hasn't happened and this is end result.

Its not the way to get people to support Green measures in the future. The Brixton Liveable neighbourhod concept was about building up support.

 

[liquidindian]

I am objecting to them thinking the Tories are doing anything for the greater good

Who gives a shit? I don't think they okayed gay marriage because they're suddenly enlightened and inclusive, I think they did it because today things have shifted and it's net vote loser not to do it. But I care more that it happened, than that it happened for mercenary reasons.

 

[nagapie]

Who gives a shit? I don't think they okayed gay marriage because they're suddenly enlightened and inclusive, I think they did it because today things have shifted and it's net vote loser not to do it. But I care more that it happened, than that it happened for mercenary reasons.

I give a shit. When people start saying the Tories have done something ok. They don't, ever, and we forget that at our peril.
You actually posted something thoughtful earlier about it making you think when you supported a Tory policy but you fail to understand why I was making my points. It does matter why people do things without taking away from the actual action. And I won't read a thread where people are saying the Tories have done a good thing, even if they're recognising it as the only good thing, without raising that.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I've already reposted 3 other things people said in support of the Tories. I'm not saying they're saying they're generally great, these are your words and a far cry from what I have highlighted, I am objecting to them thinking the Tories are doing anything for the greater good by way of looking at the rest of their record on climate change or generally at taking care of the general population.

I don't support the tories and I would never vote for them, but I also wouldn't say that everything they do is wrong - just because its the tories.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I give a shit. When people start saying the Tories have done something ok. They don't, ever, and we forget that at our peril.
You actually posted something thoughtful earlier about it making you think when you supported a Tory policy but you fail to understand why I was making my points. It does matter why people do things without taking away from the actual action. And I won't read a thread where people are saying the Tories have done a good thing, even if they're recognising it as the only good thing, without raising that.

They get voted in time after time without ever doing something ok??. That’s ridiculous.