I agree with every point you made, and obviously this is better than having no cap at all, but this is exactly what makes the argument a false dichotomy, which the government is doing more than you were. Any positives are only relative to the single invented alternative, not any of the better solutions.

The simple fact is that public services like public transport, the NHS, postal service etc should not need to be profitable. They should never be expected to support themselves financially and should be funded by taxation on those who can most afford, not increasing the cost for use by those that most require its services.

Public services will continue to crack and fail until we have a government that understands this.

Thanks mate, edited

They could have renewed it at £2 and still increased the funding without taking it from people who rely on public transport.

No false dichotomies please.

The cap has been increased by 150 50% from £2 to £3.

Please under no circumstances do trains.

If the immediate danger is the car, couldn’t they shoot the tires instead of the driver? I don’t understand how you can claim to not have intended to kill a person whom you aimed a firearm at and then pulled the trigger.

The first line of that article is

Without citing a source, Channel 12 reports…

Please try harder. There are people dying because of misinformation.

We were told he was fortified in a tunnel network surrounded by bodyguards and hostages as human shields, like some terrorist mastermind.

He is killed running alone from one bombed out house to another, by a soldier that didn’t even recognize him.

Not saying he shouldn’t have been killed, but it really shows the false pretenses under which this ‘war’ is being carried out.

They were humans pretending to be robots, these are actually robots that are being remotely controlled, rather than being fully autonomous.

They should gather that before they set the price. Once the box office doors open, increasing the price is price gouging plain and simple.

I disagree with this whole ‘market price’ thing because as a consumer you don’t have constant opportunity to buy. You get one slot where you are are the front of the queue, and if you don’t like the price then tough. It essentially just rewards those who got to the front sooner, and punishes later joiners.

Why would they be ‘chasing’ any voters with up to 5 years until the next election? How about do your jobs and represent the people who did vote for you in opposition of the government? Then you might win back some respect of the electorate.

I thought the whole point of 5 year terms was to avoid the constant election cycle.

Surely this can be solved by randomizing the order they appear on the ballot for each person? Then the impact would be negligable

I wouldn’t read too much into the Sun endorsement. Murdoch hates to be wrong, and they would have come out in favour much earlier in the campaign if they were actually ideologically aligned.

deleted by creator

Not lack of investment, lack of expenditure in favour of payouts to shareholders instead.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4478wnjdpo

Not voting is still participating in the system because you live with the results, sorry mate. You don’t get to opt out then absolve yourself of guilt from the result if its the worst case.

Your principles are sound, but not voting in any election is imo equivalent to voting for whoever wins. If that turns out to be Trump your moral high ground has no basis because you actively enabled that result.

Voting for a candidate doesn’t have to mean endorsing their entire being, it can be for many reasons, most noteably tactical voting to ensure the least bad outcome.

I mean the bit where they killed their own hostages because they were so horny for killing civilians made it pretty obvious if you weren’t already convinced