What the actual fuck?
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
60 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3137 readers
182 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm intrigued, which part of the story are you saying that about?
Sorry. I find it incredible that anyone would want to roll back the few modest advances towards a sensible, modern cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.
Most likely the attempt to depedestrianise an area.
That was my thought, but it could also have been aimed at the people fighting against the depedestrianisation.
It's insane that this guy was ever allowed back near the levers of power after being caught vote rigging.
What's to say he didn't just learn how not to get caught next time? 5 years was too short of a ban for dodgy Rahman
Interesting. Obviously safer streets are good and I generally support schemes like this (I cycle pretty much everywhere in London, and walk or take public transport when I don't cycle). But Rahman was elected on a platform that included reversing these measures. I'm not totally convinced that he should be prevented from doing so, even though I don't agree with him.
He wasn't solely elected on that. His manifesto contained dozens of incoherent contradictory promises. He's a populist and says whatever will get him elected. The fact is that local residents have repeatedly said they want the traffic calming measures to stay and Rahman who claims to be a "listening mayor" is doing the complete opposite. This is culture war posturing and nothing else.
If the campaigners are right and what he's done is illegal then opinions don't really matter, he shouldn't be allowed to conitnue pushing this course of action.
If saving actual lives isn't enough for you to oppose a "democratic" agenda I wonder where you would draw the line.
Yes, I'm very pro-death. I'm glad you noticed because sometimes people suggest my arguments are a bit too nuanced for people with low reading comprehension, but you've got straight to the key point and correctly identified my pro-death views.
OK dude. But hilarious sarcasm aside, if you don't think these actions should be opposed do you think any manifesto item of an elected official should be given a pass?
No. There are obviously limits. 'Exterminate [ethnic group]' should obviously not be given a pass even if you get 100% in a fair referendum.
However, 'these traffic calming measures cause more harm than good' might be the wrong view to hold (and almost always is, IMO), but it's not wrong on a fundamental level.
If the court decides taking them out is unlawful then, hey, it's unlawful, but I don't think it's inconsistent of me to be slightly worried about judicial activism of this kind.
OK, so you don't actually disagree with either the community opposition or any potential judicial opinion blocking the measures (provided the basis is in applicable law). Your initial comment reads a little differently.