[Closed] Tories: How are those Cycling election promises going then?

Tories supporting cycling? What planet are you on!

I'd more expect them to remove killing cyclists as a driving offence and introduce a fine system for cyclists who are hit by cars so the drivers are properly compensated for their inconvenience.

seeing how they treat disabled people on benefits, being nice to cyclists was never going to happen

im surprised they even bothered with any sort of pre election promise bullshit

However, the letter is tempered with a declaration that the party would stick with its long term economic plan to cut the deficit, stating that “this is something we can only afford if we continue to secure a strong economy.”

Commenting on the response, British Cycling’s policy adviser, Chris Boardman, said: “It’s great to hear that the Conservative party wants to increase spending further to £10 per person per year. However, it’s clear that they see this as a long-term aim rather than something they will bring in now.

Missed that bit, did you?

Read a piece from vice news last week about how many bike share schemes are closing as they are uneconomic, a few French cities and the New York operator went bust. The average scheme seems to cost £3,000-£4,000 per bike per year which the sponsorship and usage fees don't come close to covering. Costs are high for example moving the bikes around by truck which they have to do all the time as they get bunched up, eg first thing everyone rides from station to office. So for example without the lorries by 9am there would be no bikes at the station till 5.

Missed that bit, did you?

Well I for one am convinced they're sincere

<edit>Jam afaik the £10 per head is for proper infra not rentabike schemes

the bit where they said "of course we respect you and yes definitely we'll give you £10 per person eventually. Honest. Would I lie to you? "

Is that from a different article? It's not in the one posted - attempting to say that the Conservatives had made a promise that they then went back on. Which clearly, they hadn't.

hows the 15 [i]billion[/i] they promised for roads? Can we still afford that or has that also been put on the back burner untill "we continue to secure a strong economy.”

Which clearly, they hadn't.

which clearly, they have.

Nope. They said that it would be available as and when the exchequer can afford it. Pretty plain, really.

Mr Woppit - Member
However, the letter is tempered with a declaration that the party would stick with its long term economic plan to cut the deficit, stating that “this is something we can only afford if we continue to secure a strong economy.”

Apparently so.

Turdy political party in reneging on promises shocker.

Labour did it back with their transport policy back in 1997 and they scored pretty highly on the Turd Scale of being turds too.

It's not in the one posted - attempting to say that the Conservatives had made a promise that they then went back on. Which clearly, they hadn't.

this is something we can only afford if we continue to secure a strong economy.”

I need a gun to shoot you....this is not a promise to one day shoot you* it merely sets out the circumstances required to do it.

* apologies for the tone its meant to be humorous so please dont take it the wrong way as an actual threat /disrespect.

<froths>

Has the government said that the economy is weak, then ? - is it still somebody else's fault ?

yes it's still scum like me at fault (am unemployed/on esa).

The cut means that around £91m will be split between eight cities:

😯

Though having seen what happened both in the New Forest and elsewhere, you could give certain local authorities a hundred million quid each and you still wouldn't see any practical benefit for cyclists!

Where are all those 'celebrity' Labour supporters who declared they'd leave the UK if the Cons were re-elected?

I'm not surprised - we're close to bust as a country - there's far less money than many realise - when you factor in the ageing population... and pensions and NHS are going to be higher up the list than cycling.

The good thing is that cycling IMO has mainly been a grass roots thing - people just getting on bikes - we've had precious little proper action from local or national government, yet still participation has risen massively - so higher or lower government spending may or may not really impact on the numbers...

A politician lied.... Shock horror.
But on the bright side, as brooess said, more people are getting on bikes.

Still don't see where a promise of future delivery could be reneged upon when we haven't got there yet but, hey-ho, no accounting for "frothing" perceptions, I suppose...

hows the 15 billion they promised for roads?

Being pissed up the wall on HS2 so that my children will be priced out of their home area when Ilkeston becomes a commuter suburb of London?

brooess - Member

I'm not surprised - we're close to bust as a country

So you don't believe what Cameron and Osborn are telling us ..... we're not firmly on the road to a bright rosy future after all?

What do you base this pessimism and lack of faith on ?

Five years of failed Tory economic policies ?

.

The good thing is that cycling IMO has mainly been a grass roots thing - people just getting on bikes - we've had precious little proper action from local or national government, yet still participation has risen massively - so higher or lower government spending may or may not really impact on the numbers...

You think the Bike 2 Work scheme/tax relief and the fact that "participation has risen massively" is completely unconnected? Why? And why does the government persist with something which has no effect?

Mr Woppit: yeah I appreciate they can't deliver £10 a head overnight* but from where I am sat it looks an awful lot like they promised more funds and almost immediately delivered less.

Where are all those 'celebrity' Labour supporters who declared they'd leave the UK if the Cons were re-elected?

Were there any? It's normally only Tories who say they'll leave then don't.

Forgot my *:

* they can really. Any government can. Even £10 per cyclist is a drop in the ocean compared to other road and transport costs.

i thought it was just katie hopkins that said she'd leave if labour won

see tory voters, thats all on you

Y'know how we could improve cycling for free? If ALL road users could show more respect and not be assholes.

Costs nothing to not be an asshole.

Not in human nature

no accounting for "frothing" perceptions, I suppose...

If ALL road users could show more respect and not be assholes.

Been road riding this week in Portugal and there is such a difference in attitude to cyclists, not been beeped at once all week and even lorries slow down to pass (so as to throw up less dust). Very refreshing experience.

We can afford it. And if we chose to spend money in proper cycle infrastructure we'd make it back in savings from reduced congestion, pollution and NHS usage relatively quickly.

We can't afford *not* to do it, really.

And if we chose to spend money in proper cycle infrastructure we'd make it back in savings from reduced congestion, pollution and NHS usage relatively quickly.

Rational argument is not how politics work. You decide in advance what the right thing to do is based on something called 'common sense' (aka prejudice) which normally is the opposite of what all the evidence suggests. You then spend your time in power following said 'common sense' e.g. criminalise drugs, persecute the poor, ban sex education, etc and blaming everyone who mentioned evidence for being the reason why your 'common sense' approach doesn't actually produce any results.

OP - Tory voters on here couldn't care less about this.
It doesn't affect them directly.

If Cameron had said 'Look, I'll execute one random benefit claiment every week and you shall have a tax cut' they'd still vote for them.

They don't care about anyone but themselves.
That's why they're Tories.

If Cameron had said 'Look, I'll execute one random benefit claiment every week and you shall have a tax cut' they'd still vote for them.

While Labour voters would listen to a Labour Leader condemn the executions before adding that a Labour government would also be forced to execute benefit claimants, they would just go about it in a much fairer way.

While Labour voters would listen to a Labour Leader condemn the executions before adding that a Labour government would also be forced to execute benefit claimants, they would just go about it in a much fairer way.

Yeah after being accused of being soft on benefit claiments and a bunch of leftie handwringers by the right wing press.

I suppose executing one random claimant a week and cutting a tax cut would still be preferable to Labour's policy in Iraq, which resulted in 100,000 people dying and a massive increase in spending.

We can afford it. And if we chose to spend money in proper cycle infrastructure we'd make it back in savings from reduced congestion, pollution and NHS usage relatively quickly.

That's the joke of it:

"For every £1 pound spent on cycling initiatives they can generally return up to £4 in saved costs to the NHS and value to the economy. The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20 to one."

-- [url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/mar/05/parliamentary-cycling-inquiry-lessons ]Dr Adrian Davies, Specialist in transport and health speaking at the Get Britain Cycling Inquiry[/url]

Investing properly in cycling saves and generates money.

Labour's policy in Iraq, which resulted in 100,000 people dying and a massive increase in spending.

I'm no fan of Labour or the war in Iraq, but calling it Labour's Policy is a bit much. The invasion had cross-party support and the motion was passed [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm ]412 For and only 149 Against[/url].

(Anyway, getting waaaaaaay off topic)

calling it Labour's Policy is a bit much

On a pedantic note, the poster was right Labour was the government, they put the motion to the HoC and therefore it was their policy. The Tories voted for it but did not author it.

I wonder if the deficit will go down by 23m?

After all, they didn't pay a penny off it with the money they took from the disabled.

And anyone who thinks that the tories wouldn't have followed the yanks into Iraq is delusional.

Well, I agree, but I think that fits with the idea that often there is little to separate the "traditional" parties, and that painting the Tories as claimant-sacrificers doesn't really paint Iraqi-sacrificing Labourites in a much better light (Jezza Corbyn aside, perhaps).

calling it Labour's Policy is a bit much

I completely disagree. Labour Party policy is decided by the Labour Leader and no one else. It was Labour Party policy to support George W. Bush and go to war in Iraq.

The fact that the Tories shared the same policy is completely irrelevant.

It's like claiming that staying in the EU isn't Labour Party policy because the Tories also want to stay in the EU.

Plus the dossier of lies created by Blair and Campbell with the intention of boosting support for their plans.