2015 UK Politics Megathread

[Grave_n_idle]

If 'white people' were being deliberately targeted for some form of assault, I'd say allowing them a voluntary safe space would be an acceptable solution.

which would put up ticket prices for everybody else?

The number of passengers might change a bit (some might opt out because they don't like the new idea... but some more (women especially) might opt-in feeling safer?

So... overall, I assume the number of passengers probably wouldn't change that much.

And the number of carriages would stay close to the same - after all, all we're changing is distribution of passengers.

So... even if the number of passengers DID go up... the number of carriages would expand in proportion. And the same if the number dropped.


So I don't get why you assume increased prices for everyone.

[Grave_n_idle]

If 'white people' were being deliberately targeted for some form of assault, I'd say allowing them a voluntary safe space would be an acceptable solution.

That's like saying there should be a carriage for black people.

And, if black people are being deliberately targeted for some form of assault, I'd say allowing them a voluntary safe space would be an acceptable solution.

[CoraSpia]

which would put up ticket prices for everybody else?

The number of passengers might change a bit (some might opt out because they don't like the new idea... but some more (women especially) might opt-in feeling safer?

So... overall, I assume the number of passengers probably wouldn't change that much.

And the number of carriages would stay close to the same - after all, all we're changing is distribution of passengers.

So... even if the number of passengers DID go up... the number of carriages would expand in proportion. And the same if the number dropped.


So I don't get why you assume increased prices for everyone.

No, I'm saying that the ticket prices for men would go up, because some of our services can't afford to pull more coaches.

[Olivaero]

Really why not just have a security/police presence in a single carriage which is a designated safe space for anyone to go to if they are feeling threatened by another passenger regardless of their gender or the other passengers gender? That is a sensible policy.

[Marcurix]

The number of passengers might change a bit (some might opt out because they don't like the new idea... but some more (women especially) might opt-in feeling safer?

So... overall, I assume the number of passengers probably wouldn't change that much.

And the number of carriages would stay close to the same - after all, all we're changing is distribution of passengers.

So... even if the number of passengers DID go up... the number of carriages would expand in proportion. And the same if the number dropped.


So I don't get why you assume increased prices for everyone.

No, I'm saying that the ticket prices for men would go up, because some of our services can't afford to pull more coaches.

It should be noted that this is coming from the man that has said he would renationalize the railways, which could offset that concern a little.

[CoraSpia]

Really why not just have a security/police presence in a single carriage which is a designated safe space for anyone to go to if they are feeling threatened by another passenger regardless of their gender or the other passengers gender? That is a sensible policy.

Security yes, police no. No need to overstretch the police because someone's feeling vulnerable.

[Alyakia]

renationalize the railways and give them to the women. the time for our commu-feminist agenda to reign supreme has truly come.

[CoraSpia]

No, I'm saying that the ticket prices for men would go up, because some of our services can't afford to pull more coaches.

It should be noted that this is coming from the man that has said he would renationalize the railways, which could offset that concern a little.

So he'd deliberately and artificially change the prices? And make a nice loss doing this?

Didn't a certain awful PM in the 1940s start creating government services that made a loss?

[Alyakia]

It should be noted that this is coming from the man that has said he would renationalize the railways, which could offset that concern a little.

So he'd deliberately and artificially change the prices? And make a nice loss doing this?

Didn't a certain awful PM in the 1940s start creating government services that made a loss?

we still need to pay private companies subsidies you know

not everything needs to make a profit

[CoraSpia]

So he'd deliberately and artificially change the prices? And make a nice loss doing this?

Didn't a certain awful PM in the 1940s start creating government services that made a loss?

we still need to pay private companies subsidies you know

not everything needs to make a profit

it's highly beneficial if it does.

[The Nihilistic view]

No, I'm saying that the ticket prices for men would go up, because some of our services can't afford to pull more coaches.

It should be noted that this is coming from the man that has said he would renationalize the railways, which could offset that concern a little.

Also I don't recall Japan for example charging men more because they have women only carriages anyway. It's just a load of nonsense.

[Grave_n_idle]

Only with specific people not entire groups. Your free to not associate with a single person who you name, like a stalker for instance. Your not free to not associate with other people who have done nothing wrong to you yet simply because you fear them irrationally or rationally.

Nope. You should be able to choose to associate with absolutely no one, if you so choose.

To get into this wonderful safe space that she is far more in need of than any Cis woman. Although in retrospect I guess this problem could be cleared up just on their say so I doubt many predators would pretend to be trans to get in anywhere.

There's no discrimination against transwomen inherent in saying there should be a women's carriage. I didn't say it should only be for cis-women.

Uh what? Genderqueer people are probably going to be okay with just saying "I'm Genderqueer" Or Neutrois or Neutral or ~Third gendered but the safe spaces are women only remember so.... what do?

The point would be that in your example, they are signposting themselves as genderqueer. In general, women are targeted for the features of themselves they aren't self-signposting - i.e. the fact that they are women. They are less likely to be being targeted.

[CoraSpia]

It should be noted that this is coming from the man that has said he would renationalize the railways, which could offset that concern a little.

Also I don't recall Japan for example charging men more because they have women only carriages anyway. It's just a load of nonsense.

It's simple supply and demand.

[Grave_n_idle]

The number of passengers might change a bit (some might opt out because they don't like the new idea... but some more (women especially) might opt-in feeling safer?

So... overall, I assume the number of passengers probably wouldn't change that much.

And the number of carriages would stay close to the same - after all, all we're changing is distribution of passengers.

So... even if the number of passengers DID go up... the number of carriages would expand in proportion. And the same if the number dropped.


So I don't get why you assume increased prices for everyone.

No, I'm saying that the ticket prices for men would go up, because some of our services can't afford to pull more coaches.

Which doesn't make any sense. Again, it's just distribution that is being affected.

Oh, unless you're talking about some super rural train that only has one carriage? (Not sure how far into the boonies you'd have to go for that).

[CoraSpia]

No, I'm saying that the ticket prices for men would go up, because some of our services can't afford to pull more coaches.

Which doesn't make any sense. Again, it's just distribution that is being affected.

Oh, unless you're talking about some super rural train that only has one carriage? (Not sure how far into the boonies you'd have to go for that).

If you're on a 4-carriage train, of which 1 carriage is womens only and 1 is first class, men have a capacity of 2 carriages, while women have a choice of 3. All it'll do is provide dirt-cheep travel for women.

[Geilinor]

renationalize the railways and give them to the women. the time for our commu-feminist agenda to reign supreme has truly come.

That makes the women-only carriage worse. It would involve the state in promoting gender segregation.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which doesn't make any sense. Again, it's just distribution that is being affected.

Oh, unless you're talking about some super rural train that only has one carriage? (Not sure how far into the boonies you'd have to go for that).

If you're on a 4-carriage train, of which 1 carriage is womens only and 1 is first class, men have a capacity of 2 carriages, while women have a choice of 3. All it'll do is provide dirt-cheep travel for women.

If you're on a 4-carriage train of which 1 carriage is women's only, and 1 is first class - men have a choice of 3 carriages and women have a choice of 4. That doesn't change the price of the tickets.

And even if ALL the women went into the women's carriage... they'd just be vacating seats in one of the other sections. The ratio of bodies versus seats hasn't changed... so the price hasn't changed.

[CoraSpia]

If you're on a 4-carriage train, of which 1 carriage is womens only and 1 is first class, men have a capacity of 2 carriages, while women have a choice of 3. All it'll do is provide dirt-cheep travel for women.

If you're on a 4-carriage train of which 1 carriage is women's only, and 1 is first class - men have a choice of 3 carriages and women have a choice of 4. That doesn't change the price of the tickets.

And even if ALL the women went into the women's carriage... they'd just be vacating seats in one of the other sections. The ratio of bodies versus seats hasn't changed... so the price hasn't changed.

but most women won't, because a lot of women have families/like to travel with men. So you've got one dirt-cheep carriage because they can't sell seats in it, meaning their'll be a gender difference in price.

[Geilinor]

Only with specific people not entire groups. Your free to not associate with a single person who you name, like a stalker for instance. Your not free to not associate with other people who have done nothing wrong to you yet simply because you fear them irrationally or rationally.

Nope. You should be able to choose to associate with absolutely no one, if you so choose.

You don't have that right on a train. If you want to be alone, stay at home or take a car.

[Chartist Socialist Republics]

It's worth noting that this "female-only carriage" thing isn't actually a policy or even a proposal of Corbyn's. It's a policy that was mentioned in discussion forums with women or something of the like, and Corbyn said that it was not a preferable solution.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nope. You should be able to choose to associate with absolutely no one, if you so choose.

You don't have that right on a train. If you want to be alone, stay at home or take a car.

Indeed. Which is why I'm not actually advocating that every person has their own carriage. That would be silly.

[CoraSpia]

It's worth noting that this "female-only carriage" thing isn't actually a policy or even a proposal of Corbyn's. It's a policy that was mentioned in discussion forums with women or something of the like, and Corbyn said that it was not a preferable solution.

we know, we're discussing the theoretical.

[Grave_n_idle]

If you're on a 4-carriage train of which 1 carriage is women's only, and 1 is first class - men have a choice of 3 carriages and women have a choice of 4. That doesn't change the price of the tickets.

And even if ALL the women went into the women's carriage... they'd just be vacating seats in one of the other sections. The ratio of bodies versus seats hasn't changed... so the price hasn't changed.

but most women won't, because a lot of women have families/like to travel with men. So you've got one dirt-cheep carriage because they can't sell seats in it, meaning their'll be a gender difference in price.

Except you're making totally unsupported assumptions.

Not least being the totally illogical assumption that there will be dirt cheap seats. If they are cheap, women will sit there. If they sit their, the seats won't be empty, so they won't be cheap. There would be an immediate price equilibrium - but even ignoring THAT, you assume women would simply choose NOT to sit in the carriage. Which makes no sense.

[CoraSpia]

but most women won't, because a lot of women have families/like to travel with men. So you've got one dirt-cheep carriage because they can't sell seats in it, meaning their'll be a gender difference in price.

Except you're making totally unsupported assumptions.

Not least being the totally illogical assumption that there will be dirt cheap seats. If they are cheap, women will sit there. If they sit their, the seats won't be empty, so they won't be cheap. There would be an immediate price equilibrium - but even ignoring THAT, you assume women would simply choose NOT to sit in the carriage. Which makes no sense.

So are you saying that women would choose to sit in a segregated carriage rather than with their families?

Also, is this a women-only carriage, or a non-men carriage? It seems a little odd not to allow children.

[Great Nepal]

If you're on a 4-carriage train, of which 1 carriage is womens only and 1 is first class, men have a capacity of 2 carriages, while women have a choice of 3. All it'll do is provide dirt-cheep travel for women.

If you're on a 4-carriage train of which 1 carriage is women's only, and 1 is first class - men have a choice of 3 carriages and women have a choice of 4. That doesn't change the price of the tickets.

And even if ALL the women went into the women's carriage... they'd just be vacating seats in one of the other sections. The ratio of bodies versus seats hasn't changed... so the price hasn't changed.

That's the ideal case distribution scenario: you get the segregated carriage full leaving equivalent number of seats in other carriages.
Worst case scenario is of course that no women would want to use the segregated carriage leaving the carriage empty and requiring men at next station to take another train (as women can take the empty carriage) or else fork out for company adding third general carriage.
Average case would probably be under-utilised segregated carriage, leading to same issues as in worse case scenario but to lesser extent. Fact is segregation undoubtedly leads to less efficient distribution of resources, because of unequal utilisation of resources.