Lib Dems - lying through their teeth
Discussion
This all happened a few weeks ago before our local by-election in which local Lib Dem Mark Hunter got voted in. Their had been some dirty electioneering especially from the local Tories, but the Lib Dems were doing their usual 'tell the people what they want to hear, get elected, then just do what we were going to do all along' routine.
So I decided to blatantly unmask it. Our roads are in a terrible state, with potholes and changing surfaces all over them, and the LD response has been to festoon them with speed humps and paint them a variety of confusing colours, not to mention changing 30 zones to 20 zones for absolutely no discernable reason (the only road deaths IIRC in my area have been a variety of squirrels and small birds).
So I sent them this:
[quote=I]Dear Mr. Hunter,
In response to the ‘Grumble Sheet’ attached to your election campaign information, I felt obliged to bring up an issue that I feel has been ignored by the Conservatives, and thoroughly mismanaged by the Liberal Democrats in Cheadle Hulme, that of road surfacing.
If you are familiar with the area, you will be aware that the roads are in a genuinely appalling condition. Most have a variety of surfaces, mutilated by auxiliary works, and all the surfacing is cheap, mismatched, cracked and dilapidated.
During Stephen Day’s tenure as MP, he repeatedly ignored pleas to have local roads smoothly resurfaced, typical of the Tory avoidance to spend money unless absolutely necessary.
However, under the Liberal Democrats, things have got ostensibly worse, due largely to the party’s city-centric, bigoted anti-car, anti-motorist bent. We do not have a problem with inappropriate speed in this area and no-one has been killed on the roads for as long as I’ve lived here. Yet the Liberal Democrat response, to typically make life hard for motorists whilst being seen to be doing something, has been to festoon our already dreadful roads with speed humps.
In this setting, these are just another road surface inconsistency. Recent research has shown that mismatched and uneven road surfaces are one of the greatest causes of car accidents, and to add such suspension-damaging measures to already rutted and damaged roads – in the name of safety – is ridiculous. Coupled with the awkward edges of the decades-old tarmac, you are increasingly the likelihood of punctures, loss of tyre grip and, in bad weather, skidding. It is no wonder people drive large off-roaders when once-smooth roads have been turned into distracting urban assault courses. Even the nominal ride height of our family’s Fiat Punto has caused the suspension to bottom out over the constituency’s roads even at 15 miles per hour, so I dread to think what faces drivers of cars with lower and stiffer suspension.
I implore you to consider, whilst (admirably) resurfacing the pavements, you also consider removing such inconsistencies as speed humps and giving the roads the resurfacing they have been awaiting over 20 years.
And before you barrage me with statistics about ‘saving lives’, might I remind you that, firstly, no-one has been killed on Cheadle Hulme’s now-humped roads for as long as I can remember (I’ve lived here twenty years), so no deaths have been prevented, nor were any imminent with any regularity. Stop making life hard for motorists because your party tells you to, and start making the roads smoother, because the greater control and fewer distractions a driver has, the safer the roads will be.
Yours Sincerely TC16 etc[/quote]
Then he sent me this:
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
Dear Mr. Twincam
Thank you for your letter about speed humps and road surfacing.
Speed humps are only installed in response to the wishes of residents on the affected roads. They certainly are not part of any "anti-motorist bent"[/quote]
Err, were we consulted? No. Have we all constantly lobbied to get the roads [i]resurfaced[/i] as our cars keep getting damaged by the poor roads? Yes.
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
On the matter of road resurfacing, your Council has to make a judgement, given the limited resources available, as to what proportion of the budget can be spent on road resurfacing. I am sure that we would all like completely to resurface the roads on a regular and frequent basis but, given all the other calls on the council's budget, this is simply not possible.[/quote]
Err, and what about your highly publicised personal expenditure Mr. Hunter? And surely if you diverted the money spent on humps, scameras, bus lanes, '20' signs and multi-coloured paint, you could actually resurface all these roads :banghead:
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
There has never been any intention to "make life hard for the motorist."
[/quote]
Err, I point the right honourable :censored:wit to his own party's website
[quote=www.libdems.org.uk]
"The Government has failed to tackle the rising numbers of children being driving to school. As well as causing congestion and pollution on our roads it contributes to the general deterioration in the health of young children."
"The long term solution to congestion problems on our road network is a reliable and affordable public transport system combined with congestion busting road user pricing."
"The traffic police are nothing more than a sticking plaster."
"Simply building more roads only adds to traffic and congestion."
""The Government has failed to understand why people use their cars and has failed to provide genuine alternatives from public transport. This decision today confirms this gross failure to understand the problem, let alone the solution."
"we need a charging regime for car use - not car ownership - which reflects both congestion and need. In the medium to long-term we should be charging vehicles for when and where they use our roads, taxing the use rather than ownership of cars. At the same time however, we must also improve our local transport infrastructure as part of the same equation. In our towns and cities buses often provide the most economical and environmentally friendly form of public transport. London has demonstrated what can be done and we need to allow other towns the same regulatory regime in order to provide the same sort of result."
"Reward owners of less polluting cars with lower taxes. For many people, particularly in rural areas, cars are a necessity and cannot be replaced by public transport. But they can be far less damaging to the environment when they use less fuel or alternative fuels. We will start by reforming the VED system for taxing cars to cut tax on those that pollute less, funded by increasing it on those that pollute more. Congestion charging in London (first proposed by the Liberal Democrats) has cut pollution, cut traffic jams and paid for new investment in buses. We will encourage more cities and towns, where traffic congestion is a problem, to extend congestion charging, linked to upfront investment in better public transport, so millions more have the chance to drive less. In the longer term, as technology allows, we will scrap petrol duties and VED altogether, replacing the revenue with a national road user charging system based on location, congestion and pollution (including the level of pollution of the particular vehicle). As a result, pollution and congestion will be better targeted rather than the present heavy taxes on every journey: Department for Transport research shows most journeys will be cheaper as a result, while congestion and pollution will be more effectively cut."
"Promote walking and cycling. Children walking to school get fit for life – but it must be safe. Fewer school-run car journeys also mean less pollution, less congestion and fewer road deaths. Liberal Democrats will encourage and promote Safe Routes to School with calmed traffic, safe pavements, good lighting and grown-ups on hand to conduct “walking buses”. Adults need to exercise too, so we will provide more cycle routes and reform planning rules to make sure key services are more easily accessible by foot or bicycle."[/quote]
Not anti-car my arse.
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
Yours Sincerely
Mark Hunter[/quote]
Don't let them in ANYWHERE! They're the worst example of say-one-thing-and-do-another I've EVER seen. At least Labour are more interested in licking Tony's bottom and the Tories will do bugger-all (which in most cases is better than politicians doing 'something'). The Liberal Democrats have a hard-Left social engineering project up their sleeves, they're not afraid to use it, and if they ever end up running the country, anyone who doesn't 'conform' will have a very hard time of it indeed.
Apologies for long post, but at least all the info's there.
So I decided to blatantly unmask it. Our roads are in a terrible state, with potholes and changing surfaces all over them, and the LD response has been to festoon them with speed humps and paint them a variety of confusing colours, not to mention changing 30 zones to 20 zones for absolutely no discernable reason (the only road deaths IIRC in my area have been a variety of squirrels and small birds).
So I sent them this:
[quote=I]Dear Mr. Hunter,
In response to the ‘Grumble Sheet’ attached to your election campaign information, I felt obliged to bring up an issue that I feel has been ignored by the Conservatives, and thoroughly mismanaged by the Liberal Democrats in Cheadle Hulme, that of road surfacing.
If you are familiar with the area, you will be aware that the roads are in a genuinely appalling condition. Most have a variety of surfaces, mutilated by auxiliary works, and all the surfacing is cheap, mismatched, cracked and dilapidated.
During Stephen Day’s tenure as MP, he repeatedly ignored pleas to have local roads smoothly resurfaced, typical of the Tory avoidance to spend money unless absolutely necessary.
However, under the Liberal Democrats, things have got ostensibly worse, due largely to the party’s city-centric, bigoted anti-car, anti-motorist bent. We do not have a problem with inappropriate speed in this area and no-one has been killed on the roads for as long as I’ve lived here. Yet the Liberal Democrat response, to typically make life hard for motorists whilst being seen to be doing something, has been to festoon our already dreadful roads with speed humps.
In this setting, these are just another road surface inconsistency. Recent research has shown that mismatched and uneven road surfaces are one of the greatest causes of car accidents, and to add such suspension-damaging measures to already rutted and damaged roads – in the name of safety – is ridiculous. Coupled with the awkward edges of the decades-old tarmac, you are increasingly the likelihood of punctures, loss of tyre grip and, in bad weather, skidding. It is no wonder people drive large off-roaders when once-smooth roads have been turned into distracting urban assault courses. Even the nominal ride height of our family’s Fiat Punto has caused the suspension to bottom out over the constituency’s roads even at 15 miles per hour, so I dread to think what faces drivers of cars with lower and stiffer suspension.
I implore you to consider, whilst (admirably) resurfacing the pavements, you also consider removing such inconsistencies as speed humps and giving the roads the resurfacing they have been awaiting over 20 years.
And before you barrage me with statistics about ‘saving lives’, might I remind you that, firstly, no-one has been killed on Cheadle Hulme’s now-humped roads for as long as I can remember (I’ve lived here twenty years), so no deaths have been prevented, nor were any imminent with any regularity. Stop making life hard for motorists because your party tells you to, and start making the roads smoother, because the greater control and fewer distractions a driver has, the safer the roads will be.
Yours Sincerely TC16 etc[/quote]
Then he sent me this:
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
Dear Mr. Twincam
Thank you for your letter about speed humps and road surfacing.
Speed humps are only installed in response to the wishes of residents on the affected roads. They certainly are not part of any "anti-motorist bent"[/quote]
Err, were we consulted? No. Have we all constantly lobbied to get the roads [i]resurfaced[/i] as our cars keep getting damaged by the poor roads? Yes.
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
On the matter of road resurfacing, your Council has to make a judgement, given the limited resources available, as to what proportion of the budget can be spent on road resurfacing. I am sure that we would all like completely to resurface the roads on a regular and frequent basis but, given all the other calls on the council's budget, this is simply not possible.[/quote]
Err, and what about your highly publicised personal expenditure Mr. Hunter? And surely if you diverted the money spent on humps, scameras, bus lanes, '20' signs and multi-coloured paint, you could actually resurface all these roads :banghead:
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
There has never been any intention to "make life hard for the motorist."
[/quote]
Err, I point the right honourable :censored:wit to his own party's website
[quote=www.libdems.org.uk]
"The Government has failed to tackle the rising numbers of children being driving to school. As well as causing congestion and pollution on our roads it contributes to the general deterioration in the health of young children."
"The long term solution to congestion problems on our road network is a reliable and affordable public transport system combined with congestion busting road user pricing."
"The traffic police are nothing more than a sticking plaster."
"Simply building more roads only adds to traffic and congestion."
""The Government has failed to understand why people use their cars and has failed to provide genuine alternatives from public transport. This decision today confirms this gross failure to understand the problem, let alone the solution."
"we need a charging regime for car use - not car ownership - which reflects both congestion and need. In the medium to long-term we should be charging vehicles for when and where they use our roads, taxing the use rather than ownership of cars. At the same time however, we must also improve our local transport infrastructure as part of the same equation. In our towns and cities buses often provide the most economical and environmentally friendly form of public transport. London has demonstrated what can be done and we need to allow other towns the same regulatory regime in order to provide the same sort of result."
"Reward owners of less polluting cars with lower taxes. For many people, particularly in rural areas, cars are a necessity and cannot be replaced by public transport. But they can be far less damaging to the environment when they use less fuel or alternative fuels. We will start by reforming the VED system for taxing cars to cut tax on those that pollute less, funded by increasing it on those that pollute more. Congestion charging in London (first proposed by the Liberal Democrats) has cut pollution, cut traffic jams and paid for new investment in buses. We will encourage more cities and towns, where traffic congestion is a problem, to extend congestion charging, linked to upfront investment in better public transport, so millions more have the chance to drive less. In the longer term, as technology allows, we will scrap petrol duties and VED altogether, replacing the revenue with a national road user charging system based on location, congestion and pollution (including the level of pollution of the particular vehicle). As a result, pollution and congestion will be better targeted rather than the present heavy taxes on every journey: Department for Transport research shows most journeys will be cheaper as a result, while congestion and pollution will be more effectively cut."
"Promote walking and cycling. Children walking to school get fit for life – but it must be safe. Fewer school-run car journeys also mean less pollution, less congestion and fewer road deaths. Liberal Democrats will encourage and promote Safe Routes to School with calmed traffic, safe pavements, good lighting and grown-ups on hand to conduct “walking buses”. Adults need to exercise too, so we will provide more cycle routes and reform planning rules to make sure key services are more easily accessible by foot or bicycle."[/quote]
Not anti-car my arse.
[quote=Mark :censored:er]
Yours Sincerely
Mark Hunter[/quote]
Don't let them in ANYWHERE! They're the worst example of say-one-thing-and-do-another I've EVER seen. At least Labour are more interested in licking Tony's bottom and the Tories will do bugger-all (which in most cases is better than politicians doing 'something'). The Liberal Democrats have a hard-Left social engineering project up their sleeves, they're not afraid to use it, and if they ever end up running the country, anyone who doesn't 'conform' will have a very hard time of it indeed.
Apologies for long post, but at least all the info's there.
I have to agree TC. They are no better than Labour.
Trouble is, as you say, Tories are no better. They have the least anti-car policies, but if they ever get back in I would be surprised if they could or indeed would undo all the anti-car damage that has been done in the last 10 or 15 years.
A depressing state of affairs, so I shall go back to sticking my head in the sand and paying a quid for a litre of petrol whilst scraping my exhaust on every speed bump I crawl over
Trouble is, as you say, Tories are no better. They have the least anti-car policies, but if they ever get back in I would be surprised if they could or indeed would undo all the anti-car damage that has been done in the last 10 or 15 years.
A depressing state of affairs, so I shall go back to sticking my head in the sand and paying a quid for a litre of petrol whilst scraping my exhaust on every speed bump I crawl over
I hate the way government is always trying to promote buses as 'environmentally friendly'. Buses are not environmentally friendly at all. Their exhausts are completely unregulated and, further more, they don't have to meet any emmitions regulations. Which cars will have to very soon.
Buses don't make any sense to me anyway. I mean, who in the right state of mind would rather wait in the cold for a bus when, as you get on, you have to stand next to some chav for half an hour, or rather sit in a heated car with comfortable seats and get there in you own time?
The cr*pness of the whole situation is, that the gov. don't want us in cars (and trying every method to get us out) but public transport is awful and becoming increasingly more expensive. Caught between two hard thingies really. Unacceptable.
Buses don't make any sense to me anyway. I mean, who in the right state of mind would rather wait in the cold for a bus when, as you get on, you have to stand next to some chav for half an hour, or rather sit in a heated car with comfortable seats and get there in you own time?
The cr*pness of the whole situation is, that the gov. don't want us in cars (and trying every method to get us out) but public transport is awful and becoming increasingly more expensive. Caught between two hard thingies really. Unacceptable.
C C said:
They are abunch of s.
The Association of British Drivers
People like Sian Berry are in no position to tell the rest of the country how to behave.
-Unelected
-Uneducated
-Have a hidden agenda, (such as she obviously has a massive chip on her shoulder about something or other).
-Have a blinkered view, which doesn’t see beyond her cosy flat in Islington, her easy cycle ride to her office, and the local vegan café.
The libs dems and the loony left have no consideration for the practicalities of daily life.
We need to consider the root causes of all these issues. For example, perhaps people have a 4x4 because all the speed humps and poor road surfaces and uninsured drivers trying to kill them??
Similarly, don’t protest against roads, protest against building shed loads of houses which subsequently require roads.
I consider myself in a position to hold an informed opinion on environmental issues like the anti 4x4 debate, because I spent 5 years (at one of the best universities in the world) studying environmental issues. What does your local MP know about it???
stigproducts said:
They are abunch of
The Association of British Drivers
People like Sian Berry are in no position to tell the rest of the country how to behave.
-Unelected
-Uneducated
-Have a hidden agenda, (such as she obviously has a massive chip on her shoulder about something or other).
-Have a blinkered view, which doesn’t see beyond her cosy flat in Islington, her easy cycle ride to her office, and the local vegan café.
The libs dems and the loony left have no consideration for the practicalities of daily life.
We need to consider the root causes of all these issues. For example, perhaps people have a 4x4 because all the speed humps and poor road surfaces and uninsured drivers trying to kill them??
Similarly, don’t protest against roads, protest against building shed loads of houses which subsequently require roads.
I consider myself in a position to hold an informed opinion on environmental issues like the anti 4x4 debate, because I spent 5 years (at one of the best universities in the world) studying environmental issues. What does your local MP know about it???
Spot b0llock on.
My biggest problem is that they take the same attitude towards transport as my Mum - that the car is a last resort if you can't get a bus.
Who the hell are they to tell us how and when we 'want' to use our cars. Yesterday, Nonegreen gave me a highly enjoyable lift in his Porsche, during which we drove in a large twisty circle. He wanted to drive like that, and there was no 'sustainable public transport alternative'.
As soon as you take this attitude, you are anti-car. Why? Because you essentially 'compress' what constitutes a 'car' and a 'journey' into government-dictated 'needs'. Going off that logic, the Lib Dems would fine you for going on holiday, as no matter what you choose - car, plane, boat - it's 'unneccesary'.
And I'd like to see them cycle down to the South of France in a day with three week's worth of luggage.
Who the hell are they to tell us how and when we 'want' to use our cars. Yesterday, Nonegreen gave me a highly enjoyable lift in his Porsche, during which we drove in a large twisty circle. He wanted to drive like that, and there was no 'sustainable public transport alternative'.
As soon as you take this attitude, you are anti-car. Why? Because you essentially 'compress' what constitutes a 'car' and a 'journey' into government-dictated 'needs'. Going off that logic, the Lib Dems would fine you for going on holiday, as no matter what you choose - car, plane, boat - it's 'unneccesary'.
And I'd like to see them cycle down to the South of France in a day with three week's worth of luggage.
Twincam16 said:
"The Government has failed to tackle the rising numbers of children being drivEN to school. As well as causing congestion and pollution on our roads it contributes to the general deterioration in the health of young children."
I agree with the Lib Dems: It is the children's fault. They should tax parents for having children and close schools because they create unnecesary congestions in the morning and afternoon in the roads nearby. Plus bear in mind all the noise pollution and social problems they create, the crap food they eat and the wrappings of sweets they leave all over the place. Tax them all and ban them all. Use the money for planting trees instead of building schools: they do not harm anyone, they do not make any noise, they do not use cars and they do not require roads or social welfare.
Pies said:
Do you actually think any polititian doesn't lie.
They all lie
Oh yeah, but they used to do it to line their own pockets. that I could (almost) deal with.
Nowadays, you've got these self-righteous types who think they're being 'holistic' and 'community-minded', yet they'll decide exactly who constitutes that 'community' before acting in their favour.
They're called the 'liberal elite' - basically a bunch of socially important people with high-ranking jobs who aren't actually in it for the money or the personal gain, but because they think they can 'change/save the world'.
I give you: Most primary school teachers, most junior medics, social workers, charity 'officials', local councillors, magistrates, think-tank employees and anyone with 'community' in their job title.
These are people who don't live, and never have lived, in the real world. They live in their idealised fantasy world and like all tin-pot dictators, they don't see anything wrong with that and want everyone to agree with them and join them.
I believe, historically, that fascist and communist parties have always recruited in such a way.
There was one on the telly this morning who believed that we should ALL give 10% of our earnings 'to charity'. His phrase was 'sell that Porsche, you don't need it'
Who is HE to tell me what I do and don't need? There is idealism and idealism, but dictating 'needs' is sheer authoritarianism
Twincam16 said:
There was one on the telly this morning who believed that we should ALL give 10% of our earnings 'to charity'. His phrase was 'sell that Porsche, you don't need it'
Who is HE to tell me what I do and don't need? There is idealism and idealism, but dictating 'needs' is sheer authoritarianism
Ah! The "Let them eat cake" syndrome, though reversed in this case.
I welcome their views being aired and would encourage as many of them as possible to be as outspoken and self-righteous as they can manage.
People are, it seems, beginning to see more of the reality of their situations than they have for the past few years and seem to be ever more ready to avoid the PC route and call BS BS when they see or hear it.
Good.
BS makes excellent fuel for that sort of fire. (Though it may release a number of dioxins ...)
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff