frankPodmore

frankPodmore, 5 months ago

The government is currently running a consultation on the new guidance which you can respond to here.

frankPodmore, 4 days ago

I think most of the cooler heads are saying similar things, including, as you say, people like Fraser Nelson who are not inclined to be sympathetic towards Labour!

frankPodmore, 5 days ago (edited 21 hours ago)

I don’t think it’s just that, but that is helpful.

Look at the last two general elections: in 2019 Boris Johnson was less popular than Theresa May was in 2017, but he did way better than her because he was up against someone even less popular than he was. People didn’t actually like him but he benefited enormously from being ‘not Corbyn’.

frankPodmore, 2 days ago

That claim by Labour probably has about 10 caveats that would further delay proper decarbonisation.

It doesn’t. It’s all well and good being sceptical but not about information that is freely available!

We do need to decarbonise everything, but the grid is the main thing. For example, there’s no point putting everyone in new electric vehicles if they’re powered by a carbon intensive grid, so it’s absolutely right to prioritise fixing that first.

Labour is investing in public transport and cycling everywhere it’s in power, which is exactly what we want. You are right about the difficulties of the voter coalition, but the voter coalition that would back green policies even better than these already very good policies is too small for any party to win power with their backing alone. Labour is doing as much as it possibly can given those constraints.

frankPodmore, 1 month ago

The ‘world was safer’ argument is an especially bizarre one to make this week, of all weeks, when the Middle East is ‘on the cusp’ of a wider conflict that was partly caused by Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from a treaty with Iran. And Trump also inflamed tensions in that same region by moving the US’ Israeli Embassy to Jersualem. As to conflict in ‘the West’ specifically, he also endorsed and continues to endorse the very people pushing the West towards conflict, and himself caused violent conflict in the US, which was part of ‘the West’ last time I checked.

frankPodmore, 5 days ago

People don’t like or trust Sunak, so they’re less likely to believe it coming from him. But you’re basically right and that’s why it’s so infuriating the the moderator allowed Sunak to repeat the lie so many times.

frankPodmore, 5 days ago

Hopefully that’s not too common.

I don’t suppose it makes much difference, but it’s always good to focus on the fact that it’s a lie and not mention the actual number if at all possible. I wish the headline writers would take that advice!

frankPodmore, 4 days ago

WAR WITH SPAIN! WAR WITH SPAIN!

The British government finally heeded the call to stop the dastardly Spaniard once and for all, precipitating a wider conflict which split the continent. Switzerland elected to stay neutral, but to put a 5p charge on plastic bags. The French initially sided with Spain, before the Parisian workers gloriously arose, up with the barricades, down with the government, and sided with their British comrades. The Germans seized the moment to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire, on the basis that no one was paying attention, but overreached with an attempt to reconquer Poland and the Low Countries, to which the Britannic-French People’s Alliance responded with remarkable swiftness, cunningly ignoring Belgium et al and striking directly at the heart of the Hun. The Russians, never ones to let a good opportunity to invade Poland from the East pass by, struck simultaneously, leading to the scenario pictured in the map.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

I don’t need your pity. But I’ll take it.

frankPodmore, 4 days ago (edited 21 hours ago)

Yeah, I think I might have to admit defeat here. The focus on Starmer’s bloodlust is what really makes it.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

Sure, totally makes sense.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago (edited 18 hours ago)

if you look at his record, he clearly doesn’t give a fuck about anyone with darker skin than himself.

Let’s look at that record, then.

As a barrister, in addition to the pro bono work defending Caribbean people from the death penalty, which !Womble has mentioned, Keir Starmer also opposed the Iraq War, marching against it and issuing legal opinions against it. Being opposed to a war largely waged against people with brown skin suggests that he does, in fact, care about at least some people with darker skin than himself. Indeed, even some of his more controversial positions, like defending Hizb ut-Tahrir show the same: he is clearly willing to go out on a limb to defend the human rights of non-white people (I don’t personally think it’s controversial that even terrorists need legal defence, but then nor does Keir Starmer).

As DPP, Starmer did important work tackling FGM, which mainly effects women of colour. He also introduced policies which led to an increase in the number of BAME people working in the CPS. EDIT: Forgot to include this one about his work on the Stephen Lawrence case.

On becoming Labour leader, Starmer appointed the most ethnically diverse shadow cabinet in history (it’s been reshuffled since then, but as far as I can tell, it’s still very diverse, e.g., Lisa Nandy was demoted, but David Lammy was promoted, so the ‘net’ diversity was the same for that move, Thangam Debbonaire and Shabana Mahmood are both still there, etc.). Starmer has continued his work with Baroness Doreen Lawrence, appointing her as race relations adviser. Labour has implemented nearly all of the Forde report (old article, but I couldn’t find anything more recent), which includes training on anti-black racism.

We’ll have to wait to see the full manifesto, but Labour are planning some sort of new race relations law, specifically aiming at achieving equal pay. Finally, the next Parliament, which will probably be mainly made up of Labour MPs led by Keir Starmer, is going to be the most diverse ever.

Also, this isn’t directly down to Starmer, but I think it’s at least worth noting that both Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour elected their first BAME leaders during Starmer’s tenure, which hardly seems compatible with your argument that the party is currently led by a racist.

So, yeah. I have looked at his record, as you suggested. It’s pretty clear.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

I think cynicism is a fair response to anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict and Labour’s response to it, but it’s worth noting that the Guardian has different language:

the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country [my emphasis]

I don’t know what that bit about the veto means, but ‘before the end of any peace process’ suggests they see it as part of the peace process, not an end result.

I think it’s notable that Labour’s position is now firmly pro-ceasefire and anti any further military action by Israel. Per that same Guardian article, they’ve also given ‘implict support’ to the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, although there’s no specific reference given.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

We’ll have to wait for the manifesto to be sure, I agree, and you may well be correct that this is a big nothing.

Hypothetically, though, if you thought that recognising Palestine now might hinder, rather than help, any eventual peace process (I’m not saying that this is what I think, to be clear), would you still want to go ahead with that recognition?

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

Yeah, everyone will run it as ‘The interview Sunak gave instead of honouring D-Day’.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago (edited 16 hours ago)

And now he’s complaining about Labour ‘politicising’ this. He’s a politican, everything he does is politicised!

EDIT:

The full quote is just incredible and is some evidence that Sunak might in fact be the stupidest man in the world:

I also don’t think it’s right to be political in the midst of D-day commemorations. The focus should rightly be on the veterans and their service and sacrifice for our country.

So why the fuck did you run off and record a political interview in which your refused to apologise for the lie you told about politics for political reasons?

frankPodmore, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

It all depends, really. As other people have pointed out, you can allay the problems of car traffic by giving trams right-of-way, dedicated lanes or both.

I’ve tried to summarise what I understand are the key pros and cons of trams vs. buses below. As you can see, I’ve come up with more positives than negatives, but it really does depend on the particular situation in each town or city. Mixed modes are always best, IMO!

Upsides

• Trams are generally easier to electrify than buses, so they can be more eco-friendly in that sense, though this is changing with better charging infrastructure, hydrogen fuel cells, etc., for buses.
• Trams can also be built with very low clearance, making it near impossible for them to run someone over, which is a good safety feature.
• They’re generally quieter than buses, too.

Mixed

• Trams cost more to build compared with buses (because you need to lay tracks) but then cost less in the longer term (because rails and metal wheels are more efficient than tarmac roads and rubber wheels, and wear out more slowly). So, which is best from a cost POV depends on your exact situation.
• Tram rails can be laid with grass underneath, which is more eco-friendly for numerous reasons. Of course, this also entails a downside if you want to use that space for other vehicle types. Again, another one where a planner would need to weigh costs and benefits.

Downsides

• The key downside is that they need tracks: this makes them much harder to divert around some kinds of temporary obstructions which buses can easily manoeuvre around.