The MP and the 15minute city conspiracy

[Alex321]

I agree. Post WWII there was a lot of research trying to work out why a whole country "turned bad". Some such as the Stanford Prison experiment entered folklore and has been repeated several times, others such as the Milgram experiment would never get past any ethics panels today. The Third Wave is one I'm not that familiar with, but addressed the same situation.

In comparison, there now appears to be a much greater credibility given to conspiracy theories. There were many around when I was little, but utterly ridiculous ones such as the Flat Earth theory, alongside various anti-vacc groups (gene therapy, etc) that go completely against common sense seems to be gaining traction amongst more and more people.

Yes, people of my age remember David Icke and his appearance (to be mocked) on Wogan, but with Andrew Brigden, Neil Oliver, et al (please add your left-wing lunatics here too) all pushing beyond the propaganda of Steven Yaxley-Lennon , Nigel Farage and Katy Hopkins (again, please add left wing firebrands here too), this trend seems to be heading towards the mainstream.

I'm not sure there is more credibility given to conspiracy theories, there is just more exposure because of Social Media and easier access to "proof" via google and other search engines.

 

[matticus]

There are certainly the algorithims that "funnel" the content the user is most likely to engage with. Is that really it?
Psychologists tell us that associating with a group with common ideas works to reinforce and strengthen those ideas. Is that it?

Is there something else going on "under the hood" of segments of society?
Is it down to simple economics? Lots of "news" is free on the Internet. Why "pay" for content that is produced in accordance with the laws and ethics of professional Journalism when I can get "the real news" for free.

Or are we seeing too much of people's "Best Lives" and that makes us angry and want to lash out in any way we can?

Or is society becoming so divided that we no longer seek out the views of the "other", just simply dismiss them and seek to antagonise them by being deliberately provocative?

Is "All of the above" an option??

 

[Andy in Germany]

There are parts of the world where a sudden lack of cars would result in a civilisation destroyed. I'm thinking particularly of US cities where cycling is difficult and walking impossible a lot of the time.

I see the point, having worked as an apprentice in a theatre in Montana for 9 months, but in the hypothetical situation that all cars were suddenly too difficult/expensive to use, that would at least make the roads safe for other transport, although in the case of MT that would also mean getting citizens to control their dogs (and occasionally trigger fingers) a bit more carefully.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

That's a pity because I haven't a notion what you're talking about.

As one small worked example, you could check out the issues around Khan's ULEZ. There are many other better ones, but it all heads to places that seem too sensitive for here, hence me not wanting to get over involved.

 

[mjr]

There are certainly the algorithims that "funnel" the content the user is most likely to engage with. Is that really it?

Yes, or rather the algorithms that funnel the users to the content which makes the social media mogul most money. Part of that is that some social media firms have experimented on their users and believe that anger makes them more money, which sort of makes sense: most people won't obsessively check for replies to confirm that people are still agreeing with them, but some clearly reply more quickly to rebut disagreements.

There are parts of the world where a sudden lack of cars would result in a civilisation destroyed.

That added a "sudden" that wasn't in the previous discussion. After all these years, I doubt any of us are expecting a sudden total de-car-ing.

Other than that, I think we're in agreement. Seeing is believing and now, thanks to places like London finally pushing ahead over noisy minority opposition, people can go see much more easily than making an international journey.

Another aspect that gets missed in these discussions is democracy. Just because some group decides it's for the good of all, that shouldn't exclude the views of the majority.

Yes, but what's the majority? Repeatedly, we've been told that there's a majority on social media against stopping ratrunning through residential areas (so-called Active Neighbourhoods or Low Through-traffic Neighbourhoods), but reliable polls and surveys consistently show that, in reality, majorities greater than 2-to-1 support them. Thanks to professional astroturfers, sockpuppetry and so on, a "social media majority" may not be a real-world majority, especially if there's substantial money behind a campaign on the issue being discussed.

Of course, it's good to hear the objections and try to address the reasonable problems, but some of the points in favour of continuing car over-use are pretty surely in bad faith and can't ever be addressed, like the Kahn ULEZ conspiracy bull shoot that the Ranty Highwayman describes in https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2023/02/bad-faith.html

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Yes, but what's the majority? Repeatedly, we've been told that there's a majority on social media against stopping ratrunning through residential areas (so-called Active Neighbourhoods or Low Through-traffic Neighbourhoods), but reliable polls and surveys consistently show that, in reality, majorities greater than 2-to-1 support them. Thanks to professional astroturfers, sockpuppetry and so on, a "social media majority" may not be a real-world majority, especially if there's substantial money behind a campaign on the issue being discussed.

Ignoring his flagrant misuse of data and accepting it is just one of a number of decisions that seem to go against democracy where these things are rarely present in a successful manifesto, from his own figures "More than half of Londoners oppose Sadiq Khan’s plans to expand the ultra-low emission zone to the Greater London boundary."

 

[mjr]

Ignoring his flagrant misuse of data and accepting it is just one of a number of decisions that seem to go against democracy where these things are rarely present in a successful manifesto, from his own figures "More than half of Londoners oppose Sadiq Khan’s plans to expand the ultra-low emission zone to the Greater London boundary."

I don't know who you're quoting there. The Evening Standard reported a YouGov survey that found "51 per cent back Ulez expansion but 27 per cent are opposed" in https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...sion-zone-ulez-expansion-london-b1031442.html. So isn't the most democratic move to solve the objections of as many of the 27% as possible, but still do what the 51% want?

And that's rather different to the Kahn-is-a-WEF-puppet conspiracy theory nonsense to which I was referring, anyway. I hope we can agree that the people opposing Kahn's plans for that reason are probably beyond all hope of being included.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I don't know who you're quoting there. The Evening Standard reported a YouGov survey that found "51 per cent back Ulez expansion but 27 per cent are opposed" in https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...sion-zone-ulez-expansion-london-b1031442.html. So isn't the most democratic move to address the reasons of as many of the 27% as possible and do what the 15% want?

And that's rather different to the Kahn-is-a-WEF-puppet conspiracy theory nonsense to which I was referring, anyway. I hope we can agree that the people opposing Kahn's plans for that reason are probably beyond all hope of being included.

I don't agree with your final premise as I have never claimed he is, and I was citing Khan's own figures that show the majority opposed it which shows your figures to be wrong.

I was using his mess as just one example of groups that are not sections of society are pushing their own views which are outside of democracy, even if they are pushed by an elected body.

 

[mjr]

[...] I was citing Khan's own figures that show the majority opposed it which shows your figures to be wrong.

What own figures of Kahn? Nothing has been cited. Just a short quote with no source that says opposite to the professional survey.

So, the majority support it, in this case by just short of 2 to 1 over opponents (51% to 27%).

The story I linked also says that most consultation responses included objections, but that's not surprising, is it? One reason to do good consultations is to find what objections could be addressed by revising the plans, then allow the elected leaders to decide which revisions to accept.

But most ordinary voters who are happy with a plan won't go through the hassle of filling out a form, same as people are less likely to leave reviews of a purchase if everything was OK. So the professional survey is a more reliable estimate of the majority view.

I was using his mess as just one example of groups that are not sections of society are pushing their own views which are outside of democracy, even if they are pushed by an elected body.

What mess? The main mess is caused by those nonsense trolls on social media, so by "groups that are not sections of society" did you mean the social media paid trolls, or things like the trade associations allied to motoring who are basically paid to object to the consultation? But then what is being "pushed by an elected body"?

Or are you suggesting that the majority are opposing the plan to reduce pollution, despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Or something else?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

What own figures of Kahn? Nothing has been cited. Just a short quote with no source that says opposite to the professional survey.

So, the majority support it, in this case by just short of 2 to 1 over opponents (51% to 27%).

The story I linked also says that most consultation responses included objections, but that's not surprising, is it? One reason to do good consultations is to find what objections could be addressed by revising the plans, then allow the elected leaders to decide which revisions to accept.

But most ordinary voters who are happy with a plan won't go through the hassle of filling out a form, same as people are less likely to leave reviews of a purchase if everything was OK. So the professional survey is a more reliable estimate of the majority view.


What mess? The main mess is caused by those nonsense trolls on social media, so by "groups that are not sections of society" did you mean the social media paid trolls, or things like the trade associations allied to motoring who are basically paid to object to the consultation? But then what is being "pushed by an elected body"?

Or are you suggesting that the majority are opposing the plan to reduce pollution, despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Or something else?

I think yours is a rather rude and offensive response.

If you check out Khan's official survey, you can see the correct figures for yourself, which show it was not supported by the majority.

If you check out the research into his existing ULEZ, and the claims he uses for the expansion, you can see the mess I'm referring to.

 

[Dogtrousers]

We're drifiting a bit away from cycling advocacy. Just sayin'

So at the risk of getting the thread locked ... I'm aware my coat is on a wobbly peg here ...

But re ULEZ. There was a survey recently(ish) that showed opposition to ULEZ expansion (note, not to ULEZ itself with the current S. Circ boundary) But it wasn't "Khan's official survey". It was written by the Conservatives in the GLA, and the question as phrased was (reportedly) misleading as it asked something like "do you agree with those rotters at TfL using ULEZ as a revenue stream" or some such. So if you feel like dismissing it you can probably find good grounds.

As ever, you can choose your data to suit your pre-existing prejudices.

Meanwhile there were recent reports of a study showing ULEZ to be effective in reducing NOx and particulates. But if your existing view is opposed to that conclusion there are probably reasons you can find to ignore it.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

We're drifiting a bit away from cycling advocacy. Just sayin'

So at the risk of getting the thread locked ... I'm aware my coat is on a wobbly peg here ...

But re ULEZ. There was a survey recently that showed opposition to ULEZ expansion (note, not to ULEZ itself with the current S. Circ boundary) But it wasn't "Khan's official survey". It was written by the Conservatives in the GLA, and the question as phrased was (reportedly) misleading as it asked something like "do you agree with those rotters at TfL using ULEZ as a revenue stream" or some such. So if you feel like dismissing it you can probably find good grounds.

As ever, you can choose your data to suit your pre-existing prejudices.

Meanwhile there were reports of a study showing ULEZ to be effective in reducing NOx and particulates. But if your existing view is oppossed to that conclusion there are probably reasons you can find to ignore it.

There are also official and independent reports by very reputable experts that dispute the claimed reductions in particulate and NOx, but there are probably reasons people can find to ignore those.

It's not particularly off topic, given that some of those claiming opposing views are a conspiracy theory, are using questionable data themselves. Khan himself has done that very thing.

 

[Andy in Germany]

What your post misses out, are the groups that are not sections of society, that may be appointed or self appointed protectors of the public that also fall into many of the traps and holes you mention. Far too many decisions are made based on theory and academics, without full consideration to the human factor.

Another aspect that gets missed in these discussions is democracy. Just because some group decides it's for the good of all, that shouldn't exclude the views of the majority.

And on that note, I'll bow out before it's not my choice.

I don't recall anyone being able to vote on the destruction of their neighbourhood for car-based infrastructure, or major roads being built through their town, or the removal of their rail and bus services et c. It's strange that when that happened democracy wasn't really a major concern, but now we're reversing these mistakes with much smaller and less destructive steps it's suddenly "undemocratic".

This sounds like a case of "all are equal but some are more equal than others".

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I don't recall anyone being able to vote on the destruction of their town for car-based infrastructure, or for major roads being built through their town, or the removal of their rail and bus services et c. It's strange that when that happened democracy wasn't really a major concern, but now we're reversing these mistakes it's suddenly "undemocratic".

You perhaps need to look at some of the manifesto promises of previous governments, and the polls and surveys over they years. It could be quite revealing.

It doesn't mean it's right, but nor does some unelected body pushing things that are not part of a manifesto either. As a rule of thumb, of they're being pushed using fear as a lever, it's worth checking deep into the data.

 

[Andy in Germany]

You perhaps need to look at some of the manifesto promises of previous governments, and the polls and surveys over they years. It could be quite revealing.

It doesn't mean it's right, but nor does some unelected body pushing things that are not part of a manifesto either. As a rule of thumb, of they're being pushed using fear as a lever, it's worth checking deep into the data.

People have to be frightened into having more pleasant walkable neighbourhoods?