The other approach is to construct an attractive narrative that pulls apart somebody else's coalition, in the manner of a Thatcher or Blair. But that seems to be beyond the skills of the current lot.

The art of triangulation is in getting people to see things differently, so they are prepared to make common cause. This generally means trying to *reduce* the salience of issues that divide your coalition.

If you've lost the art, maybe focus on delivering for your core.

Developments also need access to schools, shops, doctors, hospitals (etc etc), which is usually a lot easier with urban extensions or densification.

(because those voters are geographically dispersed)

It's probably easier (and certainly quicker) for second tier cities to build flats on the edge of their city centres than transform their transport systems. Third tier cities it's more about pump-priming office development.

Paris-Milan is shorter and might be practical once they've built the tunnel under the alps (but with a stop in Turin).

Paris-Frankfurt might be practical, though high-speed in Germany doesn't generally provide for non-stop services, and biggest cities are even further away.

Current longest regular non-stop are journeys like Milan-Rome, Madrid-Barcelona, London-Paris, Paris-Avignon/Marseille

Labour could be in a position to have a good narrative about the revitalisation of cities with office development, public transport, Austrian-style social housing. But instead they are focused on fiscal levers and hoping the private sector delivers for them.

Perhaps you might explain a little more? The Oxford Mail article is meaningless froth.

1983 result was also due to a split opposition

I love the way the sun is shining from the north in that rendering.

Labour mobility is low, so you have to repeat the trick at more local scales.

I think restrictions work best when you have a reasonable set of alternatives, and can aim for almost total switching. But charging better at finding potential switchers when availability of alternatives is mixed.

The choice is always between restricting cars or not restricting cars and just hoping the buses improve

With enough density, it might even be affordable to put in a fast connection to the station, opening up efficient access to the bigger catchment. But the next step is probably housing, not transport.

Which is why the housing/planning authority needs to work with the transport authority.

/end

We need to bolster the congestion charge with suburban employment catchment reduction. This means building flats at high density close to suburban employers.

Not everyone likes flats, but enough will find them acceptable to have a meaningful impact (and leave the houses+gardens for others)

/4

Oxford's congestion charge is in part a brave attempt to address the suburban congestion problem by creating priority bus access to suburban employment. It will struggle to be effective on its own, but the city centre benefits may be enough for it to stick.

/3

Suburban jobs are easy-enough to access by walking/cycling. But if employees are drawn from a large catchment then it is very difficult to offer an acceptable public transport alternative.

This makes it politically very difficult to restrict car use.

/2

Would you like chocolate sprinkles with that?