You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
And arguably more successfully, if looking at safety records.
But ignoring the fact that planes work in three dimensional space, where trains only move in one (faster/slower)
Isn’t something like 98% of a flight done by auto-pilot, the pilots are only there for take-off and landing, then as a back-up for the rest of the time?
I’m not sure how the pay compares, but it seems that train drivers do a lot more than pilots.
There are many rail systems around the world that are partially or fully automated, so the potential for some level of 'auto-driver' clearly exists. The technical implementation for UK rail infrastructure would probably need a chunk of investment to update and standardise things, but actually taking any of those tasks off the driver would be a huge political challenge.
But ignoring the fact that planes work in three dimensional space,
Which means that they have loads of room for error!
I had no idea that walking was a more dangerous form of transport in the UK than cycling :
I'll remember that the next time I'm told "I won't cycle as it's too dangerous".
Edit: The stats in the link above only refer to "air", I believe that the overwhelming majority of air related fatalities involve private planes, not commercial planes. So flying on commercial planes is even safer than the figures suggest.
I had no idea that walking was a more dangerous form of transport in the UK than cycling :
Have you not been listening? 🙂 Ive been banging on about that for years. walking helmets make as much sense as cycling ones
walking helmets make as much sense as cycling ones
You walk at the same speed as you cycle - about 30mph downhill?
The human body didn't evolve to handle impacts into solid objects at speeds of over 5 or 6 mph.
Have you not been listening? 🙂 Ive been banging on about that for years. walking helmets make as much sense as cycling ones
just off to get some milk from the shop 😂
"The technical implementation for UK rail infrastructure would probably need a chunk of investment to update and standardise things"
A chunk of investment is an understatement
For example to automate the service in the South East would require changing the entire infrastructure. Signalling would need changing and look how long it took to resignal London Bridge! In addition all the third rail DC would need changing to overhead AC. Plus all the new rolling stock. It would require billions of pounds.
There is talk of it happening where I drive but the mooted date is well into the 2070's
https://twitter.com/the_tuc/status/1611028421882122241?s=21
https://twitter.com/the_tuc/status/1611028750501650436?s=21
Labour have already said that they’ll repeal these laws by the way, before we start the “all the same” stuff.
I had no idea that walking was a more dangerous form of transport in the UK than cycling :
Are joking or trolling? Because this does not show that walking is more dangerous than cycling.
The tweets by the TUC really do highlight the shortsightedness of voting for Brexit to "allow" for nationalisation of your industry when the referendum is conducted during a Tory administration. If you can't make the leap of imagination (as many folks pointed out at the time) that leaving the EU threatens worker rights legislation far far more presciently than it allows an environment where nationalisation becomes achievable. You open yourselves up to accusations of allowing your ideology to get in the way of the day to day practicalities of your member's [already hard-won] rights.
It's all very well to claim that you'd continue to "fight" for those to be returned should they be lost, but it's damned site easier not to allow oneself to be maneuvered into potentially losing them in the first place. Having to fight the same battle over again removes the shine from Lynch as a negotiator.
Are joking or trolling?
You have already established earlier today that I am a troll who should be ignored. To remind you here's your long spiel :
Gents
Do not feed the trolls. We can all see you mean well, but Ernie entered this conversation earlier with a crappy motte and bailey fallacy and has been shooting out other fallacy bait and intellectual dishonesty ever since.
He does not represent the majority opnion on here, or in the country, I think he does not even represent his own opinon. So why are you all wasting your time filling up a decent discussion by arguing with attention seeking trolls? You have to learn not scratch that little mossie bite.
Why don't you take your own advice?
There are many rail systems around the world that are partially or fully automated, so the potential for some level of ‘auto-driver’ clearly exists
It already exists.The Elizabeth Line trains are fully equipped with auto-drive, though there is a Driver on them still. When they terminate at Paddington, the Driver can get out, press a button, then the train automatically travels to the next junction,waits for the signal, then comes back into the adjacent platform. The Driver then gets back on to travel back the way they arrived. i read that the Central Core of this has to be automatic once the 24+ trains per hour are working, as a manual driver cannot keep to the timetable, and once one train is 2 minutes late, it backs up the whole system for hours afterwards.
2 of the Tube lines are automatic, and IIRC, London Bridge to Kings Cross, and , of course the Docklands are automatic, and has been for 20+ years.
The ECML is getting new signalling now to allow this to happen too. Once it has been proven on a main line, it will be rolled out across the Country, they are doing away with physical signals, and doing it all via radio links. Capital cost is around half of the cost of new signalling.
Even heavy freight engines have driver assist functions that tell the driver to accelerate/slow down etc. It was found some drivers used 10% more fuel on a trip, and their driving style was causing this, so the aids give a definite financial incentive to the Companies.
How much did the “The Elizabeth Line” cost? How long did it take to build? We’ve have a government that has cancelled all new lines north of Crewe. At the current rate, new lines and upgraded lines will be ready for driverless trains at some point next century. It’s all pie in the sky to think driverless trains on our existing ancient infrastructure can be part of any plan for transport over the next couple of decades. Driver aids are more about coping with increasing the utilisation of these lines than they are about making it any easier or cheaper to train drivers, never mind do away with them.
can’t get medical help for a chronic illness,
The pool of skilled Spanish staff that NHS could rely upon has been denied them by leaving and is directly attributable.
If you’re struggling to pay your electricity bill
That will be due to our government not being able to follow the lead of EU who are levying extra charges on the producers to reduce bills. One has less of a voice than 27, directly attributable.
don’t have enough food
Prices went up as food rotted un-picked in the fields. Guess where that labour used to come from?
There's three that affect the poorly paid/provided for. If I could be bothered I could probably find causes behind the other items but these are the three main ones.
The depressing thing is that Brexit is just allowing the Tories to "Turbo-Tory".
Brexit was always going to be a terrible, regressive step for the country. However, with the right government, the damage could have been more successfully limited and some benefits realized (And before somebody wheels out the "name one benefit of Brexit!" line...... I don't know what they are, but the reality is that Brexit has happened, and we have to find some way of making it work for us).
The problem is that The Tories are so far from being the "right" government that it's beyond parody. They are using Brexit to continue their ideological mission of asset-stripping the country in order to line their own pockets, and those of their mates/donors. Everything that they do is to further this singular aim - and it's always done at the expense of the British public.
Any country governed by these kind of people is going to be run into the ground, and Brexit has just accelerated this decline.
Now is not the time for navel-gazing, and debating ideology..... there is a very urgent need to remove these amoral kleptomaniacs from power, and install a government who is actually interested in doing what they are supposed to be doing: Governing for the good of the people.
If Starmer's policy was that he was going to re-open the pandora's box of Brexit if he won - it would allow the Tories to regain all the votes from people who were "fed up of hearing about it".... the Tory comms team would have a field day. It's far better for him to have a policy of "making brexit work" which appeals to (almost) everybody, and short-term, is really what needs to happen anyway.
I believe that anyone who voted/supported Brexit is fundamentally unsuited for a leadership role (unless you are one of those people who stood to directly benefit) because it required that you ignored facts/reality in favor of ideology.
However, I can criticize Mick Lynch for his support of Brexit - but appreciate the way in which he's winning/maintaining public support for the strikes, and shining a light on the shit-**** ery of the modern tory party.
PM, no. Union leader, also no. Union spokesperson - brilliant
there is a very urgent need to remove these amoral kleptomaniacs from power, and install a government who is actually interested in doing what they are supposed to be doing: Governing for the good of the people.
I wholeheartedly agree, but there's a fundamental flaw in this solution.
... the reality is that Brexit has happened, and we have to find some way of making it work for us
Why?
How long do you think it will take to rejoin the EU? On terms that the country would find acceptable?
That's not a short term strategy. Even if that's the long term goal, the reality is that the UK needs to find a way of making brexit work in the short term
LOL. You might as well say "Solar power isn't a short term strategy for satisfying the UK energy demands. We have to make unicorn farts work in the short term".
Why?
The EU is only going to consider a return for the UK if 1. the overwhelming majority of the population want it, and depending on what question you ask of folks, that isn't clear. and 2. it is the settled policy of EVERY political party that has a outside chance of getting into power. I'd say that's going to take anything between 10-30 years. In that intervening time, we've got to make the best of what we've got otherwise we'll end up as some sort of dingy backwater, and I don't want to live in a dingy backwater. I didn't vote for it, but here we are (democracy etc etc)
Getting back to Lynch and the RMT, clearly their support for Brexit is shortsighted and will in time be a tactical error that I think they'll come to regret. Inside the EU, workers rights are settled under law and his only battle is to nationalise his industry. As both France and Germany are effectively nationalised; it's clearly possible. The only challenge will be in the form of defending the decision in court, so their central claim (the you cannot have nationalised railways inside the EU) is clearly just a political one, not a real one. Now outside the EU, the RMT have the battle of both defending worker's rights and nationalisation, and workers rights will be challenged by successive Tory governments every time they're elected into power. That is, after all, the point of Brexit for them.
Unless Mick Lynch actually wants to have that fight every four or five years with every Tory government (and that's not beyond the realms of possibility) than he's not done his workers any favours by supporting a Tory shaped Brexit.
The EU is only going to consider a return for the UK if 1. the overwhelming majority of the population want it,
Well, that's not the case is it. The EU doesn't - and I suppose can't - overly care what "the overwhelming majority of the population" want. The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't create legislation. We left in the first place due to the actions of one person.
The EU doesn’t – and I suppose can’t – overly care
Having been through Brexit, I think the EU will certainly pay attention to what the population of the UK broadly think. I think even it’s it’s the policy of both the Tories and Labour but isn’t very well supported by the public, the EU would be hesitant
Making Brexit work means allignment with the EU on standards, legislation, human rights, tax havens, anti-trust etc. so the barriers to trade are as low as possible. It means a Norway or Switzerland type deal and making whatever concessions and payments allow that.
Lynch operates in a microcosme and fails to recognise the importance of the interconnections between countries depsite representing people who work in the industries providing those connections.
Other union leaders have been guilty of the same errors. I briefly worked in Longbridge in 78, Red Robbo and his mob weren't into collaborating and contributing to efforts to produce cars to compete with imports and other brands, they were intent on sabotaging the company that paid their wages with over 500 walkouts and indeed straight sabotage with more than just a spanner in the works. Then he got lynched. Scargill was as responsible as Thatcher for the mine closures, he went head to head with the government and lost, or should I say his members and the industry lost as a result of his lousy leadership.
I reckon Lynch is heading the same way, he'll precipitate changes that would have been a slow evolution towards technical soulutions with natural wastage due to retirement and people moving one. It's curious that the strikes concern the industry where he has more or less absolute power as Robinson and Scargill had, but his real leverage lies with trucks, but that's another union. He should be patient and wait for a non-Tory government but is leading his members in what I predict is a self-destructive struggle as Union leader clashing with Tories before him. Learn from history Mr Mick.
Red Robbo and his mob weren’t into collaborating and contributing to efforts to produce cars to compete with imports and other brands, they were intent on sabotaging the company that paid their wages
a bit of convenient rewriting of history there. Robinson understood that the company needed to be successful in order to be able to share its success with its workers; it was the bosses, backed by the government that failed to recognise this.
"If we make Leyland successful, it will be a political victory. It will prove that ordinary working people have got the intelligence and determination to run industry".
-Derek Robinson
What chance did the bloke have when bloody MI5 were deployed to discredit and disrupt him? FFS.
Having been through Brexit, I think the EU will certainly pay attention to what the population of the UK broadly think.
Perhaps. But, then do what?
It wasn't unknown within the EU that there was at best a sliver of a majority in favour of leaving and that almost certainly vanished pretty rapidly. Yet we still left.
I think even it’s it’s the policy of both the Tories and Labour but isn’t very well supported by the public, the EU would be hesitant
Same argument. The EU was and is never going to attempt to overrule domestic policy. They'll follow the rules because we have a representative democracy; what matters is what our Fuhrer Du Jour thinks, not the populace.
a bit of convenient rewriting of history there.
I was surrounded by people who worked at Longbridge, my mother worked there, my neighbour had a side line selling parts he nicked off the track, my uncle worked there, my father worked for a parts supplier. Until I was old enough to read a paper for myself I believed the shop steward to be my father's boss because it was he who ran the workshop. I worked there myself in the Summer before the Winter of discontent, if anyone is rewriting history it's not me. I had the union messages direct, first hand, and the last thing on their minds was producing quality automobiles efficiently, I could see where it was leading.
I went on to do "labour economics and industrial relations" as one of my university courses and studied various international models as well as the British story. The British partucularity was the fragmented UK union landscape which divided its members and made negotatiating with business leaders unduly conflictual and problematic. Multiple unions fighting their own little corner in a confrontational manner to the detriment of the general workforce. The status given to shop stewards and union leaders led them to feeling self-important and part of a political movement rather than servers of their members and the workforce in general. This inevitably led to politicisation of issues so pragmatism and cooperation gave way to idealism and a failure to compromise - and conflict that was destructive to all.
A union's first duty should be to its members, present and future.
There’s three that affect the poorly paid/provided for. If I could be bothered I could probably find causes behind the other items but these are the three main ones.
They're all problems that can be fixed outside of EU membership. It may be more expensive to do so, it may be more difficult, but they're all things we can fix.
We're the 6th largest economy in the world. We can afford to independently organise our society and look after our people.
@Edukator you are displaying the same attitude that the management in the 70's and 80's did. Co-operating is not something British management do. Instead of looking at the process in Germany and adopting something similar they went all in on winner takes all.
Ironically Kaizan has a place for worker engagement but British management sought to ignore that too when implementing quality solutions in the late 80's. It's no wonder UK is going backwards fast as managers see that the workforce has no business in decision making and don't engage all of the talent that is available to them, nor do they see that they should pay for it.
Multiple unions fighting their own little corner in a confrontational manner to the detriment of the general workforce.
I’ve come across this sort of behaviour from time to time. Disappointing when a union rep can’t seem to understand the concept of ‘United we stand’, but failing to see the big picture is not a uniquely unionist trait.
I have far more frequently come across the adversarial approach TO unions being demonstrated by management though. It’s like they see them as the enemy automatically, rather than representing the work force that they espouse to value so highly (in words if not in actions).
@Edukator I don’t doubt your educational credentials; but your resulting opinions seem to have swayed somewhat to the right. Other opinions are available; see @sandwich ‘s excellent post above.
I have far more frequently come across the adversarial approach TO unions being demonstrated by management though.
Its odd how often the allegedly adversarial unions arent when its a foreign owned company and the senior/midlevel managers are from the companies home country.
USA companies obviously exempt from this.
<span style="font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px;">"The ECML is getting new signalling now to allow this to happen too. Once it has been proven on a main line, it will be rolled out across the Country, they are doing away with physical signals, and doing it all via radio links. Capital cost is around half of the cost of new signalling.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px;" /><span style="font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px;">Even heavy freight engines have driver assist functions that tell the driver to accelerate/slow down etc. It was found some drivers used 10% more fuel on a trip, and their driving style was causing this, so the aids give a definite financial incentive to the Companies."</span>
A lot of that is not really correct.
Dedicated lines with dedicated, near homogeneous rolling stock (such as Docklands) can indeed be set up 'autonomous' (but near always still with a staff member to step in in case of fault - so not a massive ££ saving really). If enough ££ and time is thrown at it.
ECML resignalling (East Coast Digital) which will go as far as Grantham (so only 1/3 of ECML) , will NOT be autonomous. Its having ETCS installed, and with ETCS the driver still controls the train. ETCS is only a supervisory system to step in if/when the driver ****s up. The signals are displayed in the cab rather than lights on sticks. The ££ saving for NR is getting rid of maintenance on those lights on sticks signalling.
Throw in the massive complexity of a mainline (compared to say a single tube / metro line), inc different turn outs / crossing routes, different lengths of stations, level crossings where stupid people do stupid things, and the massive variability of the trains that will run over it (multiple units, loco hauled passenger trains of different lengths, masses, braking characteristics, power / traction effort, tampers and other maintenance trains, old, new, and a myriad of permutations for freight, and its waaay more complex.
NOBODY has the political balls or will to spend the £££ to introduce fully automated mainline trains because it'll take a lifetime (FFS ETCS started to be be kicked over 30 years ago yet all we have is the Cabrian Line 'trial' so far with a small fleet of old disels units i stalled, and a few even older diesel locos). Or go through 15 years of continuous industrial unrest that will make the current strikes look like a small localised squabble.
So - train drivers driving trains are with us for a lot longer than anyone on this forum will be alive.
We’re the 6th largest economy in the world. We can afford to independently organise our society and look after our people.
That's a curve which tapers off fast. Once you get past the USA and China it pretty much flatlines. And in any case, we aren't tending upwards.
If we can do that then, why aren't we?
If we can do that then, why aren’t we?
Because "tories"
of course we have plenty of money to have a fair and decent society with our GDP per capita. the netherlands does, The Scandi countries do
Because “tories”
of course we have plenty of money to have a fair and decent society with our GDP per capita. the netherlands does, The Scandi countries do
this is exactly it, and lots of embedded wealth/ownership/tradition.
We need to tax massive trades in the city where a huge wealth is generated, we need to ban offshoring and just tax at source end of story. Then we would have enormous tax receipts and a burgeoning health education and transport system.
However the people in charge would be a bit less rich so it will never happen. Humanity is screwed.
Before coming back to the farm I worked as a project coordinator on a multi-nation, EU-funded, research project. Of all the countries involved (9 EU States) only 2 of them were constantly adversarial and unable/unwilling to compromise on almost every aspect of the project. Of those, 1 of them was far worse than the other. The 2nd least able to compromise was the Netherlands. I probably don't have to tell you which was the worst! As a nation of Empire building and 2 party FPTP politics, I guess we have such a high degree of exceptionalism and no experience of rule by compromise that it should come as no surprise really.
We left in the first place due to the actions of one person.
Who was that, then? If you say Boris you will have to show your working out.
The fact this thread is named "Lynch for PM" when a more rounded view shows him to have serious flaws, but can argue with soft southern shandies on the tv shows that populism is everything these days.
Instead of one dimensional characters we should look at all sides of people and take a closer look at all, not just whatever three word slogan they are peddling this week.
but your resulting opinions seem to have swayed somewhat to the right.
You can lean to the left and still prefer a system with fewer unions. The unions are then bigger stronger and represent all/most of the union members in a company rather than just a few. And also be opposed to the closed shop.
For the record in the most recent elections I've voted:
European elections: green
Local town elections: socialist
Législatives: en Marche/Renaissance
Présidentielle: Macron both rounds.
You can lean to the left and still prefer a system with fewer unions
that’s not what I was basing my throwaway 10 second opinion on though; it was where you readily placed the blame for the destruction of British industry in the 80s. It’s a complex and multifaceted subject for sure, but you seemed to be quick to blame unions wholeheartedly, rather than recognise the greed of the owners of the means of production and the ideologically driven Tory government who were prepared to use MILITARY INTELLIGENCE to undermine working class people daring to want to be recognised fairly for their part in wealth creation.
rather than recognise the greed of the owners of the means of production
Longbridge was state owned by a Labour government for the period I've referred to up to the Winter of discontent
British Leyland was partly nationalised in 1975 and shortly afterwards in 1979 Margret Thatcher started the process of fully re-privatising it again. Very little of BL problems stemmed from the short period that the government was a major shareholder.
It 1975 when BL was a complete mess and the government stepped in to save it from total collapse it had been under private control for decades.
The human body didn’t evolve to handle impacts into solid objects at speeds of over 5 or 6 mph
Have we only recently learned to run? Our ancestors didn't fall off things?
A fairly balanced centre left view of the Red Robbo years:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/derek-robinson-obituary
Have we only recently learned to run? Our ancestors didn’t fall off things?
At 6 mph you are running, I think evolution accepted that if you fall off a cliff or out of a tree you might die. Our ancestors a hundred thousand years ago didn't really need bodies that could take 20mph impacts to pass their genes on. So it is probably advisable to wear head protection to reduce the risk of serious injuries to your brain. IMHO
Madame and I ride horses just like our ancestors. Madame has fallen off at about 25mph a few times but only broken anything once when past child bearing age.
Madame and I ride horses just like our ancestors
Riding is a pretty recent thing in the grand scheme of things though.
Serious injuries (eg those which would mean the person is unable to look after themselves for several months or possibly years/lifetime) is an area studied in prehistorical archaeology. Since it probably means the groups have got to a certain size/sophistication in order to support them.
I don't think humans evolved two or three hundred thousand years ago to have a symbiotic relationship with horses.
I believe that the relationship between humans and horses is post-hunter gather, a point by which time modern humans had already full evolved to the level they are now.
But I might be wrong. Try not wearing a helmet and see what happens if you hit a tree headfirst at 20mph, your skull might be thick enough to deal with it.
Indeed dissonance. But there's evidence that even in very early civilisations people were cared for and survived. Atapuerca is the site with the oldest fossil remains in Europe and there's a patella to prove someone survied a serious knee injury about a million years ago. An interesting place to visit by the way with an excellent museum in Burgos nearby.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068316300641
Ernie, we’re just talking about our “ancestor’s” with no absolute time frame.
I wasn't when I brought up the original point about our evolution. My ancestors were French and Italian, as you will know from another thread, they were fully evolved human beings, I believe.
It’s what you do and it’s unpleasant and provocative.
Sorry that you think me changing the discussion is unpleasant and provocative. I didn't mean to upset you.
The vertical fall off a bike is basically the same as when you trip, walking or running doesn't really matter, the horizontal speed makes you slide or roll and may prevent you from cushioning the impact with arms etc but it's the vertical fall that creates the impact that kills you (when you fall out of a tree or a Russian hotel window).
Yes I know it's possible to ride at 25mph headfirst straight into a solid object if you really try. It's a very rare form of impact.
Sheesh, came to see updates on Mick Lynch and it has taken quite the turn, even for STW.But I will join in; early humans actually used running to catch animals. They would choose a distinctive animal and keep it moving until it collapsed.
Yeah, came to see what the latest news of ML was only to have wondered in to a completely different thread!
They would choose a distinctive animal and keep it moving until it collapsed.
Maybe, although there's no evidence it was widespread. They probs mostly jabbed at them with pointy sticks and bits of sharp rock. Humans can get to 20mph (That's not even a sub 12sec 100m) I think if we started to do real damage at 6mph I don't think we'd have lasted long as a species.
without checking I think horses have been domesticated for about 5000 years or so. I think the 3rdC BCE version of Mick Lynch was trying to get extra pay for riding the things as opposed to making them pull things along.
We're constantly evolving, whevere the time frame, Ernie:
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/genes-discovered-in-unlikely-places-study-finds
Within homosapiens from the holocene there are many adaptions to environment including bone density and strengh in populations that have survived using different strategies.
Just as the horse has evolved by selection to the variety domesticated sub species we know today (I ride an Appaloosa which is particulary happy in human company) humans have no doubt adapted to riding horses in that those who haven't killed themselves riding or been kicked/trampled to death before reproducing are our ancestors in Europe.
Is this the thread I saw yesterday?
Get a room you two...
Yes I know it’s possible to ride at 25mph headfirst straight into a solid object if you really try. It’s a very rare form of impact.
I've managed to do it, car pulled out in front of me when I was 14 years old and I was doing at least 25mph downhill, without a helmet. Obviously I survived thereby completely undermining my theory.
Mind you I did have a fractured skull and obviously had a stay in hospital, so my chances of surviving such an impact 300,000 years ago wouldn't have been great.
Indeed. How did a thread about a union leader drift to helmets and horses?
How did a thread about a union leader drift to helmets and horses?
You said something about pedestrians should wear helmets if cyclists do.
That's when it went on a tangent.
You "derailed" it by getting onto your usual topic of helmets, TJ and then Ernie replied with the comment that the human body hadn't evoved to crash into things at more than 5-6mph or soemthing like that.
It all seems very much on topic to me, horses are transport and Mick's union accepts members from transport.
Edit: we not only have helmets when riding but an air bag too. 😉
They would choose a distinctive animal and keep it moving until it collapsed.
Persistence hunting, humans are good at it because we're better at regulating body heat than our prey.
Not sure of the hunting bit but some have evolved to astounding levels of persistence
Persistence hunting, humans are good at it because we’re better at regulating body heat than our prey.
sounds good. Is a myth. It’s an evolutionary “just so story”. We have this set of traits; what did we use it for? Its arse backwards silence. The Kalahari hunters that practice now have something like a 1-2% success rate.
like I said there evidence of sharp sticks and rocks. We don’t need to make up stories about our early development
How far or for how long would your ancestors have to chase Mick Lynch until he collapses?
Persistence hunting, humans are good at it because we’re better at regulating body heat than our prey.
An 8 hour hour hunt condensed into 7 minutes:
Just popped in to see how the ML thread is going and it’s all horses and head butting trees.
Confused
I've heard Mick Lynch is trying to get all RMT members to wear helmets when walking, running and cycling for their safety so there is a link here. I also think RMT members are from a different gene pool where their skulls are thinner due to not needing to hunt due to be on trains and all.
oh, what a surprise for singletrack, an interesting thread totally derailed by a couple of arseholes, well done chaps have a gold star and scratch and sniff sticker for services to internet bellendery
an interesting thread totally derailed
What's interesting is the things that some people think is important to get angry about. As someone with a sense of humour I reckon Mick Lynch would find that highly amusing.
If you think the thread has been totally 'derailed' (I see what you did there) you can put it instantly 'back on track' by commenting whether or not you believe Mick Lynch is prime ministerial material, instead of whingeing.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that. And that might prove a tad more interesting than whingeing.
Why for one second would anyone think that ML might not make a suitable PM?
Highly articulate, obviously very shrewd and intelligent, absolutely has the interests of working people at the core of his values, huge determination and resolve, unflappable under media pressure……. The list is endless.
That there’s any doubt is testament to the conditioning we’re all subjected to that results in only a very narrow band of people ever being considered suitable for the role.
Mick Lynch would most definitely bring a sense of humour to the role of PM. He would get my backing if only for that.
I would back him but hold on, what about his Brexit stance
It's similar to Starmer's isn't it?
TBH I don't really care. I am coming from the opposite angle as I was strongly remain and think Brexit was the stupidest thing the country has ever done whereas you loved it.
Tend to agree with you on Brexit, it happened, the damage has been done/continues to be done and how it is now dealt with is the question with rejoining not being the answer.
I do think Mick may find being PM a bit different as he is a one trick pony dealing with one subject (very well) but would still prefer him over pretty much all current MPs.
I said a page back I don't think Mick Lynch would make a good PM. The helmet, crash, horse, hunter gatherer interlude was a much needed light hearted interlude which convinced me I'm dealing with people with a sense of humour and a bit of perspective, but aparently that makes us "arseholes" - can't please al the people all the time.
The way society runs is a huge colection of compromises, we're also operating in world environment and deviation too far from how the rest of the world works results in being cut off from opportunities. Liz Truss went far to far to the right and it was quickly obvious that what she was doing was unworkable. I think Mick would do the same in the oposite deirection because he's an idealist.
We all have our own idea of what constitutes progress, the electric bus running around our city centre with just the driver, handicapped access is progress over the stinking 60s busses a driver and usually fairly obnoxious ticket collector, IMO. The bus users who don't live on the main network can reserve too thanks to modern logistics - flexibilty thanks to technology.
Mick is resistant to change and I don't see that as a quality in a politician. We've lived through decades of people losing their jobs in low-tech industry where they can be replaced by technology or their jobs have be exported, and new jobs being created in other areas. Britain is still the 6th biggest economy without a coal industry or a car plant in Longbridge. However a rail network is very much a part of the future and the future is higher tech trains and infrastructure run by fewer people.
I would back him but hold on, what about his Brexit stance
Why on earth would someone’s stance on a six year old, decided referendum get in the way of electing them when they clearly want to better the lives of the vast majority of the population?
how it is now dealt with is the question
Absolutely. It’s done, we’re out, get on with it. We can either go along with the low tax, small state, ERG version of life after the EU or we can at least try to make it work for the people in the way that many genuinely left wing ( as opposed to merely socially liberal) people have been arguing for since the 70s.
I think there’s a reasonable argument that the only government worth electing at the moment is a left wing government that is totally committed to making Brexit work for the people.
**Before the pile on starts, I voted Remain and if it were 2016 again, I still would**
We’ve lived through decades of people losing their jobs in low-tech industry where they can be replaced by technology or their jobs have be exported, and new jobs being created in other areas.
And it’s resulted in an extremely inequitable and divided society. One so fractured and unhappy that popular feeling has enabled the BNP manifesto dreams of 2010 to become government policy by 2023.
Mick is resistant to change
Far from it, I think he’s totally committed to changing the way that society is organised and wealth is distributed.
Hopefully that will give desperate and disillusioned people an alternative to Nationalism and Populism.
You've split my quote to misquote me and distort what I've said Trailmonkey. The change I'm talking about is technological.
Make your points which are valid, no need to manipulate what I've said to put words in my mouth and create argument for the sake of argument when I might agree with you on the points you make about the the way that society is organised and wealth is distributed, I do.
I think there’s a reasonable argument that the only government worth electing at the moment is a left wing government that is totally committed to making Brexit work for the people.
1) there is no left wing government on offer
2) the majority want a second ref on rejoining
3) there is no "making brexit work" Its a complete nonsense. The only way brexit works is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. thats the whole aim. Brexit is not the destination. its the tool
the majority want a second ref on rejoining
It's that today's best made up statistic or is there some evidence?
Recent opinion polls show not only that a majority of respondents recognise that Brexit is an unmitigated disaster, but that a majority would now actually favour another referendum.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-referendum-rejoin-eu-b2250813.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-rejoin-poll-b2212730.html
You’ve split my quote to misquote me and distort what I’ve said Trailmonkey. The change I’m talking about is technological.
I haven’t misquoted you at all, I’ve copied and pasted your own words. The only reason for reversing the two sentences was because that made more sense when replying. Apologies if that’s made you feel misinterpreted.
The point I’m trying to make is that technological changes have happened already across industry and society as you yourself have pointed out. You can’t accuse him of being resistant to change when he’s trying to reverse what is by now the status quo.
The status quo is not going to help his members.