Lib-Dem claims he will out-green the Greens

Lib-Dem claims he will out-green the Greens

Lib-Dem claims he will out-green the Greens

First published in News
Last updated
by

The latest candidate to throw their hat into the ring for the Brighton Pavilion parliamentary seat has vowed to out-green the sitting Green MP Caroline Lucas.

Liberal Democrat candidate Chris Bowers has announced he will join the battle for the highly contested seat and said his strong environmental background would allow him to “fight fire with fire” against the UK’s only Green MP.

The Nick Clegg biographer said he is confident heading into the election, adding that he could offer a “pragmatic environmental option”. However, bookmakers are less sure, ranking the Liberal Democrats as 100/1 outsiders along with Ukip for the seat which they see as neck-and-neck between Dr Lucas and Labour candidate Purna Sen.

Mr Bowers, who has been a Lewes District councillor since 2007, is best known as a tennis commentator having worked as a member of the BBC 5 Live team at Wimbledon for 13 years until 2006.

The 53-year-old can still be heard on Eurosport and internet radio.

Mr Bowers said: “I have tremendous respect for Caroline Lucas and she and I probably agree on most of the major issues, certainly the environmental ones.

“But the best she can hope for is to be a one-woman pressure group in the House of Commons, while the Lib Dems have been in government since 2010, running the Department for Energy and Climate Change and fighting for the environment.

“With my environmental background, I’m offering Pavilion voters a pragmatic environmental option.

“We can get things done rather than just shout from the sidelines.”

Bernie Millam finished a distant fourth in the 2010 election for the Lib Dems, with less than 14% of the vote, but Mr Bowers is confident the flip-flopping over university tuition fees and role as junior coalition partners won’t harm his chances.

Green MP Dr Lucas said: “I think we’ve proven that, with the right political will, what Mr Bower dubs a ‘one-woman pressure group’ can get things done.

“I enjoy a great deal of constructive cross-party collaboration on a wide range of environmental and social justice issues.

“I’m also fortunate to be able to hold the other parties to account – for the very fact that I do have a distinctive platform and I don’t have to toe the usual party lines.”

Place your bets

Ladbrokes said Brighton Pavilion saw the most amount of money staked for any seat in the whole of the UK in 2010 when Caroline Lucas pipped Nancy Platts by 1,252 votes.

The company’s head of political betting Matthew Shaddick said he expected the seat to be near the top of the money list again in 2015, with the current odds pointing to a repeat photo finish.

Current odds are: 10/11 Greens, 10/11 Labour, 25/1 Conservatives, 100/1 UKIP, 100/1 Liberal Democrats.

The company has taken one bet on the Lib Dems so far, for a modest 10p.

Mr Shaddick said: “I think it would be fair to say that the betting markets do not share Mr Bowers' optimism.”

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:14am Thu 21 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

He's off to a good start.....I hate him already.

Green policies are a disaster for everyone except those who make money from them.
He's off to a good start.....I hate him already. Green policies are a disaster for everyone except those who make money from them. notslimjim
  • Score: 12

11:45am Thu 21 Aug 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

I can't believe someone gambled 10p!
I can't believe someone gambled 10p! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 16

12:15pm Thu 21 Aug 14

NickBrt says...

Will he work within Brighton or rush off at the drop of a hat to balcombe and everywhere else? Good luck to Labour though, I support them as they genuinely care about people unlike other Politicians.
Will he work within Brighton or rush off at the drop of a hat to balcombe and everywhere else? Good luck to Labour though, I support them as they genuinely care about people unlike other Politicians. NickBrt
  • Score: 3

12:16pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Fight_Back says...

I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city. Fight_Back
  • Score: 9

12:24pm Thu 21 Aug 14

argchat says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
I forgot all about the mess LDC created against our application for the stadium. Thanks for reminding me, I hate that **** political party anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.[/p][/quote]I forgot all about the mess LDC created against our application for the stadium. Thanks for reminding me, I hate that **** political party anyway. argchat
  • Score: 5

12:40pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Plantpot says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them.

You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.[/p][/quote]What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them. You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please) Plantpot
  • Score: -1

12:45pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Plantpot says...

Green politics aren't about ecology. It is a form of socialism the UK left behind many years ago and which has virtually no support across the UK. Muesli mountain is the only place in the UK where the Greens have even the remotest chance of winning. Just do the research and look at the Greens performance in recent UK elections.
Green politics aren't about ecology. It is a form of socialism the UK left behind many years ago and which has virtually no support across the UK. Muesli mountain is the only place in the UK where the Greens have even the remotest chance of winning. Just do the research and look at the Greens performance in recent UK elections. Plantpot
  • Score: 13

12:52pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Vigilia says...

What better definition of 'delusion' could you get?
What better definition of 'delusion' could you get? Vigilia
  • Score: 8

1:02pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Vote UKIP.
Vote UKIP. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 2

1:04pm Thu 21 Aug 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Who would ever trust a lib dem again?!

Look at their liar of a leader - promised no tuition fees and the first thing the rat did was introduce them.

I would never vote for them again. Untrustworthy to the core.

I hate the conservatives - they always sell off things, like Royal Mail, for far less than they are worth.

Labour are no better now.

We need a new political party - one that is honest and trustworthy and doesn't rip us all off with their expenses. One that will make this country far better - help create jobs, build decent homes for those on low pay and the homeless and stop having children going to school hungry. So much needs to be done and this government have made the situation far worse.
Who would ever trust a lib dem again?! Look at their liar of a leader - promised no tuition fees and the first thing the rat did was introduce them. I would never vote for them again. Untrustworthy to the core. I hate the conservatives - they always sell off things, like Royal Mail, for far less than they are worth. Labour are no better now. We need a new political party - one that is honest and trustworthy and doesn't rip us all off with their expenses. One that will make this country far better - help create jobs, build decent homes for those on low pay and the homeless and stop having children going to school hungry. So much needs to be done and this government have made the situation far worse. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 7

1:07pm Thu 21 Aug 14

NathanAdler says...

Ahhhh The Lib Dems.

As somebody once said they will do ANYTHING for the lower classes but live amongst them.
Ahhhh The Lib Dems. As somebody once said they will do ANYTHING for the lower classes but live amongst them. NathanAdler
  • Score: 10

1:26pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Fight_Back says...

Plantpot wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them.

You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)
The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) :

1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy.

2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k.

3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken.

That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place.

As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.[/p][/quote]What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them. You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)[/p][/quote]The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) : 1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy. 2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k. 3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken. That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place. As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc. Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

1:58pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Plantpot says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them.

You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)
The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) :

1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy.

2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k.

3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken.

That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place.

As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc.
Lol.

Brighton to Sheepcote Valley - you win. I do remember though that whenever a site was mentioned locally there was a mass of opposition to it. Of course people wanted the stadium - as long as it didn't affect them personally. Crowds - I can't remember the facts around this, but we do know that since the stadium opened it has been losing millions on those 26.5k crowds. So they either have to cut costs significantly or find other revenue streams. Season tickets are down this year by 7% I read. I do believe the Albion claimed the stadium was to be invisible from local vantage points or some such. Lol.

Ref the referendum, the rules could easily have been set to have 50% of local voters needing to be in favour. Of course, there was no chance of this as it would never have got through. even then it needed a discretionary call from the SoS as LDC won every round until that point. they recognised that the SoS was hell bent on granting permission regardless of the merits of the application.

Good one about the jobs - there is plenty of research to demonstrate that stadia do not bring the benefits claimed. What sort of jobs have been created? Low paid, part time, seasonal?

The main point is that without one individual, there was no way this would have happened - the finance simply didn't stack up on a commercial basis.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.[/p][/quote]What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them. You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)[/p][/quote]The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) : 1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy. 2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k. 3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken. That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place. As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc.[/p][/quote]Lol. Brighton to Sheepcote Valley - you win. I do remember though that whenever a site was mentioned locally there was a mass of opposition to it. Of course people wanted the stadium - as long as it didn't affect them personally. Crowds - I can't remember the facts around this, but we do know that since the stadium opened it has been losing millions on those 26.5k crowds. So they either have to cut costs significantly or find other revenue streams. Season tickets are down this year by 7% I read. I do believe the Albion claimed the stadium was to be invisible from local vantage points or some such. Lol. Ref the referendum, the rules could easily have been set to have 50% of local voters needing to be in favour. Of course, there was no chance of this as it would never have got through. even then it needed a discretionary call from the SoS as LDC won every round until that point. they recognised that the SoS was hell bent on granting permission regardless of the merits of the application. Good one about the jobs - there is plenty of research to demonstrate that stadia do not bring the benefits claimed. What sort of jobs have been created? Low paid, part time, seasonal? The main point is that without one individual, there was no way this would have happened - the finance simply didn't stack up on a commercial basis. Plantpot
  • Score: -2

2:45pm Thu 21 Aug 14

joebennettphwoar says...

The Lib Dems used to get quite a few votes in Brighton and Hove (particularly Hove) but have never recovered from David Bellotti helping nearly destroy the Albion. Lewes District Council didnt help much either. Pavilion is the sort of seat that the Tories need to win to have a chance of an overall majority but it will probably be a 2-horse race between Lucas and Labour, with the Lib Dems nowhere and UKIP not much better
The Lib Dems used to get quite a few votes in Brighton and Hove (particularly Hove) but have never recovered from David Bellotti helping nearly destroy the Albion. Lewes District Council didnt help much either. Pavilion is the sort of seat that the Tories need to win to have a chance of an overall majority but it will probably be a 2-horse race between Lucas and Labour, with the Lib Dems nowhere and UKIP not much better joebennettphwoar
  • Score: 11

2:53pm Thu 21 Aug 14

joebennettphwoar says...

Plantpot wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them.

You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)
68% of those who voted in the referendum supported a stadium at Falmer - and the turnout was quite high because it was held on the same day as the local elections. You cant count all non-voters as No votes! About 45,000 voted Yes, about 21,000 No.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.[/p][/quote]What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them. You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)[/p][/quote]68% of those who voted in the referendum supported a stadium at Falmer - and the turnout was quite high because it was held on the same day as the local elections. You cant count all non-voters as No votes! About 45,000 voted Yes, about 21,000 No. joebennettphwoar
  • Score: 7

3:04pm Thu 21 Aug 14

ThinkBrighton says...

Another unelectable liberal pillock.
Another unelectable liberal pillock. ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 4

4:30pm Thu 21 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them.

You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)
The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) :

1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy.

2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k.

3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken.

That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place.

As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc.
An excellent post.

May I just correct one tiny aspect?

The 'lie' about crowd size wasn't a lie....it was a prediction based on previous crowd figures.

If someone today claimed that Albion's crowds were less than 12,000, it could be proven to be false.

Still, an excellent post that made your point rather well.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.[/p][/quote]What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them. You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)[/p][/quote]The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) : 1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy. 2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k. 3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken. That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place. As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc.[/p][/quote]An excellent post. May I just correct one tiny aspect? The 'lie' about crowd size wasn't a lie....it was a prediction based on previous crowd figures. If someone today claimed that Albion's crowds were less than 12,000, it could be proven to be false. Still, an excellent post that made your point rather well. notslimjim
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

"Out-green the Greens". Er, that's not exactly selling himself to us is it? Mind you I was also a bit disappointed when a Labour party worker knocked on my door and said that the Labour candidate for Brighton Pavilion had "been all around the world campaigning for human rights".

I tell you what, if there was a political party that was prepared to stand up for ordinary English working people - they'd clean up.
"Out-green the Greens". Er, that's not exactly selling himself to us is it? Mind you I was also a bit disappointed when a Labour party worker knocked on my door and said that the Labour candidate for Brighton Pavilion had "been all around the world campaigning for human rights". I tell you what, if there was a political party that was prepared to stand up for ordinary English working people - they'd clean up. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 5

4:55pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Zeta Function says...

The Greens are closer to Lib Dems than to any political party that would refuse to collude with hardcore poverty, local corruption, the slaughter on the roads, insufficient policing, drug deaths, the sale of cigarettes and booze in supermarkets.
The Greens are closer to Lib Dems than to any political party that would refuse to collude with hardcore poverty, local corruption, the slaughter on the roads, insufficient policing, drug deaths, the sale of cigarettes and booze in supermarkets. Zeta Function
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Thu 21 Aug 14

hoveguyactually says...

La Lucas may be ghastly, but rather the devil we know than the one we don't know, who appears to be even more ghastly, just like his leader.
La Lucas may be ghastly, but rather the devil we know than the one we don't know, who appears to be even more ghastly, just like his leader. hoveguyactually
  • Score: -5

5:43pm Thu 21 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment!
His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment! HJarrs
  • Score: -2

6:30pm Thu 21 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

HJarrs wrote:
His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment!
Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years?

Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment![/p][/quote]Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years? Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits.... G Wiley
  • Score: 1

7:49pm Thu 21 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment!
Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years?

Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....
Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them.

Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions?
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment![/p][/quote]Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years? Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....[/p][/quote]Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them. Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions? HJarrs
  • Score: -2

10:11pm Thu 21 Aug 14

NickBrt says...

Hjarrs takes strange mind bending stuff. (Allegedly)
Hjarrs takes strange mind bending stuff. (Allegedly) NickBrt
  • Score: -1

1:33am Fri 22 Aug 14

whatevernext2013 says...

HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment!
Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years?

Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....
Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them.

Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions?
are you blind or have you ever been in brighton and hove ,every doorway in north street has a homeless person sleeping ,wages are losing out to inflation ,you can t get a bus to run on time anywhere near the train station with taxis blocking the roads in the area ,if brighton is improving can you tell us were as the whole place has become a filthy dirty hole under the greens
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment![/p][/quote]Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years? Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....[/p][/quote]Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them. Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions?[/p][/quote]are you blind or have you ever been in brighton and hove ,every doorway in north street has a homeless person sleeping ,wages are losing out to inflation ,you can t get a bus to run on time anywhere near the train station with taxis blocking the roads in the area ,if brighton is improving can you tell us were as the whole place has become a filthy dirty hole under the greens whatevernext2013
  • Score: 3

1:39am Fri 22 Aug 14

whatevernext2013 says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I can't believe someone gambled 10p!
that was the minimum stake accepted ,i did try for 5p ew first
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I can't believe someone gambled 10p![/p][/quote]that was the minimum stake accepted ,i did try for 5p ew first whatevernext2013
  • Score: 1

8:25am Fri 22 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

NickBrt wrote:
Hjarrs takes strange mind bending stuff. (Allegedly)
Says NickBrt (labour)
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs takes strange mind bending stuff. (Allegedly)[/p][/quote]Says NickBrt (labour) HJarrs
  • Score: -1

8:45am Fri 22 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment!
Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years?

Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....
Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them.

Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions?
are you blind or have you ever been in brighton and hove ,every doorway in north street has a homeless person sleeping ,wages are losing out to inflation ,you can t get a bus to run on time anywhere near the train station with taxis blocking the roads in the area ,if brighton is improving can you tell us were as the whole place has become a filthy dirty hole under the greens
You are quite right, in homelessness and declining wages the city faces challenges not of its own making. However, with some success the Greens have lead on the introduction of the Living Wage and there is a development on New England Street to help homeless people transition back into a more stable life. Much more to be done, but a start against a backdrop of pernicious government cuts to benefits and council funds. A minority council administration with reducing funding should in 3 years have solved all the historical woes of the city and solved world hunger, but there you go.

My point though was regarding emissions. Cycle and bus usage has continued to rise over the last 3 years and infrastructure continues to be built, which means this trend will continue. The city's economy is doing well, continuing to grow, with a lot of jobs created and more tourists visiting.

Without the investment in cycle and bus routes, congestion and pollution would have grown anyway as more people commute into the city centre. If you take Lewes Rd, the figures show a drop in car use, but the same number of people travel down that corridor. More areas of the city are being pedestrianised and parking is ever tighter as communities demand parking zones, so I see car commuting declining further. And before you mention bus pollution, more hybrid buses have been introduced and the low emission zone will force the bus companies' hands to make further changes.

We are in the disruption phase at the moment, but in a few years we will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about while enjoying a cleaner city.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment![/p][/quote]Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years? Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....[/p][/quote]Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them. Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions?[/p][/quote]are you blind or have you ever been in brighton and hove ,every doorway in north street has a homeless person sleeping ,wages are losing out to inflation ,you can t get a bus to run on time anywhere near the train station with taxis blocking the roads in the area ,if brighton is improving can you tell us were as the whole place has become a filthy dirty hole under the greens[/p][/quote]You are quite right, in homelessness and declining wages the city faces challenges not of its own making. However, with some success the Greens have lead on the introduction of the Living Wage and there is a development on New England Street to help homeless people transition back into a more stable life. Much more to be done, but a start against a backdrop of pernicious government cuts to benefits and council funds. A minority council administration with reducing funding should in 3 years have solved all the historical woes of the city and solved world hunger, but there you go. My point though was regarding emissions. Cycle and bus usage has continued to rise over the last 3 years and infrastructure continues to be built, which means this trend will continue. The city's economy is doing well, continuing to grow, with a lot of jobs created and more tourists visiting. Without the investment in cycle and bus routes, congestion and pollution would have grown anyway as more people commute into the city centre. If you take Lewes Rd, the figures show a drop in car use, but the same number of people travel down that corridor. More areas of the city are being pedestrianised and parking is ever tighter as communities demand parking zones, so I see car commuting declining further. And before you mention bus pollution, more hybrid buses have been introduced and the low emission zone will force the bus companies' hands to make further changes. We are in the disruption phase at the moment, but in a few years we will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about while enjoying a cleaner city. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

9:17am Fri 22 Aug 14

Plantpot says...

notslimjim wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.
What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them.

You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)
The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) :

1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy.

2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k.

3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken.

That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place.

As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc.
An excellent post.

May I just correct one tiny aspect?

The 'lie' about crowd size wasn't a lie....it was a prediction based on previous crowd figures.

If someone today claimed that Albion's crowds were less than 12,000, it could be proven to be false.

Still, an excellent post that made your point rather well.
The Albion have a small core support - this was proven by declining Goldstone crowds, attendances at Gillingham and susequently the Withdean. With the advent of the new stadium it was inevitable that crowds would improve, the issue is will they continue as they are? The club has lost small fortunes since the stadium opened and season ticket sales have reportedly declined by 7% this year. If the team plays badly, it is likely that crowds will continue to decline. FFP rules ensure that the club needs to balance its books (although oddly, FFP doesn't apply to infrastructure investment, thus creating a huge subsidy loophole). The biggest overhead for many clubs is the wage bill - therefore this is the place to cut to give the biggest savings, however, football success is directly linked to the size of the wage bill. So where will the increased revenue streams come from? Put a player in the new academy now and it will take 10 years to make decent money. How much more will the customers pay for tickets and refreshments? Club shirts? The experience of the Withdean days is that when the Albion asked the fans for ££ it wasn't forthcoming. Do organisations have the appetite to invest or sponsor small provincial football clubs in a big way? Where is the return? How much extra business has been generated for AmEx? I would be one of those people in the demographic that they would look to do business with, but there's no chance I'll ever knowingly buy from them.
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested why he thinks any BHA fan would vote for him after what his party did to the Albion. The cherry on the cake is that HE was part of Lewes District Council that spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spouting lies about the stadium. Thankfully he doesn't stand a chance and he should clear off back to Lewes, he's not welcome in this city.[/p][/quote]What lies were those? What you forget is that at the only planning enquiry held to consider the stadium, the inspectors laughed out virtually every aspect of the application. LDC only lost the planning battle because the Labour secretary of state made a discretionary decision in favour of the plans - at the time Labour had narrow majorities in all their seats and obviously thought this would help them retain them. You also forget that B&H Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money supporting the planning bid, and gave £5m of free land to the Albion (according to The Argus if my memory serves me correctly), which was of course owned by the taxpayer. The referendum saw 65% of eligible B&H voters fail to vote for the proposal, so thank your lucky stars that the referendum yes vote didn't require 50%+ of the voters to endorse it, or it would have died many years ago. what has the taxpayer of B&H got from the stadium? (Independent evidence please)[/p][/quote]The lies ? Well here's three of them for starters ( there were plenty of others ) : 1. It was possible to walk from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley in 20 minutes. LDC and Norman Baker used this lie to try an show that Sheepcote Valley was a suitable place for the stadium. In reality it takes nearly an hour and that's if you're fit and healthy. 2. That The Albion would never get the 12,000 crowds they were claiming as justification for the stadium. The average last season was around 26.5k. 3. They doctored photos in their District Link newsletter in an attempt to show the area where the stadium was to be built was more scenic that it really was. They did this by removing university buildings from the photo. Another photo showing walkers using the area was actually a photo of Ditchling Beacon but LDC 'conveniently' didn't state where the photo was taken. That's how votes work in this country - they only count the ones cast. It works EXACTLY the same way for local and general elections and for all referendums. I suggest that if you don't like that voting system you campaign to have it changed. The referendum was run using the rules in place. As for benefits to the tax payer - many jobs were created by the stadium. I'm sure those tax payers are grateful for the extra money they now earn which in turn allows them to spend money in local businesses etc.[/p][/quote]An excellent post. May I just correct one tiny aspect? The 'lie' about crowd size wasn't a lie....it was a prediction based on previous crowd figures. If someone today claimed that Albion's crowds were less than 12,000, it could be proven to be false. Still, an excellent post that made your point rather well.[/p][/quote]The Albion have a small core support - this was proven by declining Goldstone crowds, attendances at Gillingham and susequently the Withdean. With the advent of the new stadium it was inevitable that crowds would improve, the issue is will they continue as they are? The club has lost small fortunes since the stadium opened and season ticket sales have reportedly declined by 7% this year. If the team plays badly, it is likely that crowds will continue to decline. FFP rules ensure that the club needs to balance its books (although oddly, FFP doesn't apply to infrastructure investment, thus creating a huge subsidy loophole). The biggest overhead for many clubs is the wage bill - therefore this is the place to cut to give the biggest savings, however, football success is directly linked to the size of the wage bill. So where will the increased revenue streams come from? Put a player in the new academy now and it will take 10 years to make decent money. How much more will the customers pay for tickets and refreshments? Club shirts? The experience of the Withdean days is that when the Albion asked the fans for ££ it wasn't forthcoming. Do organisations have the appetite to invest or sponsor small provincial football clubs in a big way? Where is the return? How much extra business has been generated for AmEx? I would be one of those people in the demographic that they would look to do business with, but there's no chance I'll ever knowingly buy from them. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

10:58am Fri 22 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

NickBrt wrote:
Hjarrs takes strange mind bending stuff. (Allegedly)
You're free to demolish his points if you have the facts and the intelligence.

Merely claiming that he's nuts doesn't prove anything.
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs takes strange mind bending stuff. (Allegedly)[/p][/quote]You're free to demolish his points if you have the facts and the intelligence. Merely claiming that he's nuts doesn't prove anything. notslimjim
  • Score: 1

11:15am Fri 22 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment!
Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years?

Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....
Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them.

Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions?
@HJarrs - so the local economy has improved - has it? Where does it say this - on the council website supported by suitable selection of biased statistical analysis?

These statistics used by councillors such as deluded Davey, after the event , to support the ideological claims rather than being brave enough to have a pre-defined success criteria?

And what, if anything, has the green party done to to improve the local economy?

Or is it as usual the greens taking all the glory for anything that improves and blaming anything that goes bad on the other parties?

Yes - I could have time to read the green-speak propoganda on the council web site - but you always seem to have time to spout this rubbish so why don't you actually do something useful instead of continually posting snide comments about every other party and sickeningly sycophantic comment on anything the the green council or green MP says?

How come the great green party, with all it's support for 20mph zones, more bus lanes and more cycles lanes has managed to make pollution levels worse in the centre of town?

Utter shambles of a party with arrogantly deluded supporters such as yourself; with an MP more worried about feminist rights than helping the local environment; and an incompetent, irresponsible naive mixed-bag of activist councillors promoting their own pet policies.

How would I improve emission levels? Well firstly I would get rid of deluded Davey (not long now!) and I would get some traffic planning professions to come up with some sensible, pragmatic, options.

For me, as pure amateur, I would start by look at improving traffic flows - the study by Ricardo and B&H Buses showed that the biggest problem was them being stuck in traffic queues and they firmly put the blame on all other road users - the bus company will only be happy when the entirety of the centre of town is dedicated to buses. Having other traffic sitting in long queues or having to use alternate routes to avoid grid-lock just makes emission worse.

How about making the centre of the city a low emission zone with any old vehicles and any dirty buses, taxis and other diesel vehicles banned form the centre of town during the day time?

How about encouraging a migration from diesel to CNG (methane), electric , hydrogen and hybrid for buses, taxis and council vehicles?

How would I improve flows - by removing dedicated cycle lanes and teaching cyclists how to ride safely and obey the rules of the road to restore traffic capacity. Then I would encourage bus companies to not use the centre of Brighton and especially Churchill Square and North Street as as Bus Station - instead get them to route buses along different roads and/or get passenger to switch buses at satellite hubs.

Then I would get proper park and ride with free buses - as is done on other major cities (including York that you mentioned recently where you had driven). What is the point of having a park-and-ride well inside the town that visitors have to queue to get to. Where could this be - well how about Falmer or Water Hall and then possibly switching to trains, of course with approval from the South Down national Park?

What idiots strangle the routes into the town with new bus and cycle lanes without providing an alternate solution for motorist?

Roll on May 2015! Remember everyone make sure you vote and make sure you vote for any party except the naive greens!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: His colleague chasing a council seat in Hove is running on the congestion ticket of free parking. So much for consideration for the environment![/p][/quote]Okay HJarrs - precisely what reduction in emissions have the greens actuality achieved in the past 4 years? Please provide actual data rather than your usual green-speak spinning bovine excrement about the benefit of cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph limits....[/p][/quote]Check out the council website, you will find reports there. You have plenty of time to find them. Now perhaps you could explain how, given the local economy has improved so much, more people are working and living in city, you would have reduced emissions by not increasing bus and cycle ridership. Perhaps you could explain the mechanics of how a 20mph increased pollution and, regarding my point above, how free parking that encourages more traffic will reduce emissions?[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - so the local economy has improved - has it? Where does it say this - on the council website supported by suitable selection of biased statistical analysis? These statistics used by councillors such as deluded Davey, after the event , to support the ideological claims rather than being brave enough to have a pre-defined success criteria? And what, if anything, has the green party done to to improve the local economy? Or is it as usual the greens taking all the glory for anything that improves and blaming anything that goes bad on the other parties? Yes - I could have time to read the green-speak propoganda on the council web site - but you always seem to have time to spout this rubbish so why don't you actually do something useful instead of continually posting snide comments about every other party and sickeningly sycophantic comment on anything the the green council or green MP says? How come the great green party, with all it's support for 20mph zones, more bus lanes and more cycles lanes has managed to make pollution levels worse in the centre of town? Utter shambles of a party with arrogantly deluded supporters such as yourself; with an MP more worried about feminist rights than helping the local environment; and an incompetent, irresponsible naive mixed-bag of activist councillors promoting their own pet policies. How would I improve emission levels? Well firstly I would get rid of deluded Davey (not long now!) and I would get some traffic planning professions to come up with some sensible, pragmatic, options. For me, as pure amateur, I would start by look at improving traffic flows - the study by Ricardo and B&H Buses showed that the biggest problem was them being stuck in traffic queues and they firmly put the blame on all other road users - the bus company will only be happy when the entirety of the centre of town is dedicated to buses. Having other traffic sitting in long queues or having to use alternate routes to avoid grid-lock just makes emission worse. How about making the centre of the city a low emission zone with any old vehicles and any dirty buses, taxis and other diesel vehicles banned form the centre of town during the day time? How about encouraging a migration from diesel to CNG (methane), electric , hydrogen and hybrid for buses, taxis and council vehicles? How would I improve flows - by removing dedicated cycle lanes and teaching cyclists how to ride safely and obey the rules of the road to restore traffic capacity. Then I would encourage bus companies to not use the centre of Brighton and especially Churchill Square and North Street as as Bus Station - instead get them to route buses along different roads and/or get passenger to switch buses at satellite hubs. Then I would get proper park and ride with free buses - as is done on other major cities (including York that you mentioned recently where you had driven). What is the point of having a park-and-ride well inside the town that visitors have to queue to get to. Where could this be - well how about Falmer or Water Hall and then possibly switching to trains, of course with approval from the South Down national Park? What idiots strangle the routes into the town with new bus and cycle lanes without providing an alternate solution for motorist? Roll on May 2015! Remember everyone make sure you vote and make sure you vote for any party except the naive greens! G Wiley
  • Score: 1

5:45pm Fri 22 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

For improvements in the economy and job creation, see the monthly report on unemployment as published in the Argus, I believe they quote government figures.

Glad you are for the low emission zone, this is being introduced.

Hybrid buses and route changes are being encouraged and supported.

Typical blinkered car driver view; make traffic flow easier and scrap cycle bus lanes but create park and rides, that will now be unattractive as buses get stuck in traffic, not having bus lanes. More people being encouraged to drive and compete for a limited number of parking spaces! If it is one thing I have learnt about the park and ride, it is that those proposing it do not intend to use it! Park and rides only work if entry to the city is restricted more.
For improvements in the economy and job creation, see the monthly report on unemployment as published in the Argus, I believe they quote government figures. Glad you are for the low emission zone, this is being introduced. Hybrid buses and route changes are being encouraged and supported. Typical blinkered car driver view; make traffic flow easier and scrap cycle bus lanes but create park and rides, that will now be unattractive as buses get stuck in traffic, not having bus lanes. More people being encouraged to drive and compete for a limited number of parking spaces! If it is one thing I have learnt about the park and ride, it is that those proposing it do not intend to use it! Park and rides only work if entry to the city is restricted more. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree