SF 25% (+1) DUP 17% (-1) All 14% (nc) UUP 14% (nc) TUV 12% (+1) SDLP 11% (-1)
(LucidTalk/Belfast Telegraph; changes from November)
Approx seat projection:
Unionists: DUP 19 UUP 13 TUV 11 Total 43
Pro-reunification: SF 23 SDLP 11 Total 34
Neutral: Alliance 13
While the compulsory coalition that is mandated by the Good Friday Agreement will be quite restricting, the symbolism of SF having the First Minister will be huge.
I think at that point the DUp would collapse the executive on the basis of A16 and the NI protocol. That won't be fixable to their satisfaction though because the issue is really the loss of Unionist dominance.
I don't see how a border poll can be put off much longer.
Although having SF as the largest single party would be symbolic, this poll doesn't make the case for a border poll at all.
The Unionist total of 43%, doesn't compare badly to the 43.9% for Unionist parties in 2017 given rounding and margin of error.
The Nationalist total of 36% is actually a bit down on the 39.8% polled in 2017.
On the basis of this opinion poll it is the Nationalists who are losing votes to the Alliance Party, not the Unionists. Not exactly a groundswell of support for Irish Unity.
The Nationalist vote before 2017 was:
2015 GE 38.4% 2014 Euros 38.5% 2011 Assembly 41.1% 2010 GE 42.0% 2009 Euros 42.2% 2007 Assembly 41.4% 2005 GE 41.8% 2004 Euros 42,2% 2003 Assembly 40.5% 2001 GE 42.7% 1999 Euros 45.4% (!!) 1998 Assembly 39.6% 1997 GE 40.2%
After the catastrophic failures of the past two weeks, @stodge once again invites you to, as an alternative to throwing it out the window or down a toilet, release your cash by investing in a scheme which makes the South Sea Bubble look like a good idea.
Yes, it's the @stodge Saturday Patent (back by unpopular demand).
This week's equine victims guaranteed to sink faster than a Conservative poll rating are:
1.10 Ascot: WINDS OF FIRE 1.20 Lingfield: MARSH LAW 2.30 Lingfield: RESILIENCE
Have a point win or each way on these though other ways of losing your money are available.
SF 25% (+1) DUP 17% (-1) All 14% (nc) UUP 14% (nc) TUV 12% (+1) SDLP 11% (-1)
(LucidTalk/Belfast Telegraph; changes from November)
Approx seat projection:
Unionists: DUP 19 UUP 13 TUV 11 Total 43
Pro-reunification: SF 23 SDLP 11 Total 34
Neutral: Alliance 13
While the compulsory coalition that is mandated by the Good Friday Agreement will be quite restricting, the symbolism of SF having the First Minister will be huge.
I think at that point the DUp would collapse the executive on the basis of A16 and the NI protocol. That won't be fixable to their satisfaction though because the issue is really the loss of Unionist dominance.
I don't see how a border poll can be put off much longer.
As you say, collapsing the executive after an election would probably be the quickest way to trigger a border poll - so it's probably worth pointing out prior to them doing it that it wouldn't be a good idea.
Except that the Unionists would win a border poll. The floating voters aren't about to throw the UK transfer payments on the bonfire, let alone the NHS.
Mr. Alistair, did you bet on Djokovic (or against) specifically, or on outsiders whose odds would shorten if he didn't play?
As my bet history has vanished into the ether I can't remember the exact order of bets but I'd backed (and laid) Novax and Medvedev.
But then, crucially, I hit the cashout button. Which auto placed a couple of dozen bets again a host of players in the field - at this point I was green.
When Novax was finally voided out suddenly I was red.
The very fact that this was a cross-matched market should have meant voiding should never have been an option (because Betfair automatically creates liquidity across all options based on individual back and lays of single players - so voiding a runner would effectively void a proportion of the bets on every single player in the tournament).
Combined with the cashout behaviour this was a disaster waiting to happen for BF.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Posting a bit early, before morning check going stick and non runners, I might sleep in if I get comfortable. I have fallen off horses so many times my back and hip not happy from time to time.
All three PB Racing Shrewdies tipped a winner last week, yours truly 2/4
I appreciate not every gambler loves sharing and sharing publicly. I suspect though some reading PB may be betting on horse racing regular particularly the Saturday coverage, I will be placing at least Lucky 15 today and means a degree of “due diligence” on my choices - I’m a open and honest girl I don’t mind sharing what led to my decision even if it likely a illegal mix of chemicals 😵💫
It’s my chance of contributing something back to the site actually 🙂 as I know nothing about anti tank drones, Epidemiology, chimpanzee testicles, or how 200 conservative PMs can collectively lose their spines at the same time.
My Lucky 15 today and my reasons
ASCOT - 13:45 - Stellar Magic (NAP) Secret weapon on my betting slip. Just the 4 races under rules in career so far, 2 wins at this distance.
HAYDOCK - 14:00 - Hunters Call Has form, but not like the favourite of this race, I’m betting against Tommys Oscar managing 4 in a row. I do such things sometimes. Maybe today it will work.
ASCOT - 14:55 - Amour De Nuit (LONG SHOT) Based on form in last race, and previous history for being there or thereabouts.
ASCOT - 15:35 - Amoola Gold (THE GIRLS LOST IT) Alcohol, Tranquillisers, pickled eggs, a bad back and bad night means I am overlooking its priced at 100-1? With a bit of looking into its history and there is no way it should be priced at that in this small field.
Good luck 🙋♀️
Good luck. Amour de Nuit is a non-runner btw. Hunters Call is 12 and Amoola Gold is, well, good luck.
My own tentative itv yankee is as follows but is subject to change:- Ascot 1.45 Fils d'Oudaries so against you there Ascot 2.20 Anything for Love Haydock 2.35 Empire Steel Ascot 2.55 Knight in Dubai
Anything for Love will have silly money on it from Meat Loaf mourners
I’m hoping now that he’s sadly died his lawyer will call a press conference and open a sealed envelope which will reveal exactly what Meatloaf wasn’t prepared to do for love. One of the great mysteries of life finally solved.
Alternatively you could just read the lyrics. From memory
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
Ms. Heathener, how toxic is Labour from Corbyn's time as leader?
Corbyn and all things Corbyn have been erased. They have no presence in the rooms in which all the important decisions are taken. If someone is still advancing "Corbyn" as their reason for not voting Labour I'd conclude they're either not paying attention or weren't voting Labour anyway.
Freedman tickling my prejudices nicely in the Guradian:
We need have no illusions about the Conservative party of old. We know its record. We know that Margaret Thatcher had her own kind of revolutionary zeal, just as we know the destructive impact of David Cameron’s austerity. But there were lines it dared not cross, monarchy and the union among them. This is a different animal. Brexit transformed it from a conservative party into a national-populist party. Its instincts now are those of Viktor Orbán, funnelling public money and jobs to ideological allies, ready to burn down even the most valued institutions that stand in its way. Of course, it has contempt for the people, as all populists ultimately do. It even had contempt for the Queen on the night of her greatest grief. So let’s not pretend these faults were Johnson’s alone. Brexit is the virus. Boris Johnson was only ever its most visible carrier.
It’s a good article, the fuck business, disrespect HM, break the BBC, scrap the Union Tory party are anything but conservative.
What a load of crap
Alternatively: if “Brexit was the virus’ then the British europhile Establishment were the arrogant scientists in the crappy BSL2 virology lab which fucked around with British democracy in evil ways for thirty years, seeing how it responded to referendums constantly promised then denied, injecting venom into the humanized mice of the people, until eventually this nasty virus escaped from the lab and destroyed everything the scientists had hoped for. Wankers
Brexiteers continuing to blame Remainers for the problems caused by Brexit still.
I saw one estimate that the customs delays in Kent are adding about £400 per crossing in cost to the logistics companies, mostly in lost costs while queuing. Quite some inflationary pressure.
Not at all. Brexit is causing problems. So what
This is not my argument. The question is What caused Brexit. It did not just appear like some magical zoonotic bug when a pangolin sodomised a fruit bat
It came from 30 years of dangerous experiments with democratic consent, by the British elite. The analogy is precise
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
Mr. Alistair, did you bet on Djokovic (or against) specifically, or on outsiders whose odds would shorten if he didn't play?
As my bet history has vanished into the ether I can't remember the exact order of bets but I'd backed (and laid) Novax and Medvedev.
But then, crucially, I hit the cashout button. Which auto placed a couple of dozen bets again a host of players in the field - at this point I was green.
When Novax was finally voided out suddenly I was red.
The very fact that this was a cross-matched market should have meant voiding should never have been an option (because Betfair automatically creates liquidity across all options based on individual back and lays of single players - so voiding a runner would effectively void a proportion of the bets on every single player in the tournament).
Combined with the cashout behaviour this was a disaster waiting to happen for BF.
What BF should have done, if they wanted to generate some goodwill, would have been to refund from their own pockets bets placed on No-vax before the issue of his visa was mentioned in the media. Trying to do it within the market, of a tournament in progress, was always going to be a catastrophe.
The problem with Conservative Votes of No Confidence is they rarely succeed.
To my knowledge, only two have brought about a direct change of leader - Thatcher lost under the old rules and of course IDS in 2003 (the only VoNC of a Conservative LOTO).
Most fail though there is often a residual impact - May was broken by just having 200 MPs support her - Major managed 218 as I recall but that left a strong sense of a party divided and that's the thing. Voters tend not to back parties which don't look united and if a significant minority don't back the leader the illusion of unity is difficult to create.
At the moment, the Conservatives look divided and Labour looks united - that may be illusion but it's a convincing illusion for now.
Freedman tickling my prejudices nicely in the Guradian:
We need have no illusions about the Conservative party of old. We know its record. We know that Margaret Thatcher had her own kind of revolutionary zeal, just as we know the destructive impact of David Cameron’s austerity. But there were lines it dared not cross, monarchy and the union among them. This is a different animal. Brexit transformed it from a conservative party into a national-populist party. Its instincts now are those of Viktor Orbán, funnelling public money and jobs to ideological allies, ready to burn down even the most valued institutions that stand in its way. Of course, it has contempt for the people, as all populists ultimately do. It even had contempt for the Queen on the night of her greatest grief. So let’s not pretend these faults were Johnson’s alone. Brexit is the virus. Boris Johnson was only ever its most visible carrier.
It’s a good article, the fuck business, disrespect HM, break the BBC, scrap the Union Tory party are anything but conservative.
What a load of crap
Alternatively: if “Brexit was the virus’ then the British europhile Establishment were the arrogant scientists in the crappy BSL2 virology lab which fucked around with British democracy in evil ways for thirty years, seeing how it responded to referendums constantly promised then denied, injecting venom into the humanized mice of the people, until eventually this nasty virus escaped from the lab and destroyed everything the scientists had hoped for. Wankers
Brexiteers continuing to blame Remainers for the problems caused by Brexit still.
I saw one estimate that the customs delays in Kent are adding about £400 per crossing in cost to the logistics companies, mostly in lost costs while queuing. Quite some inflationary pressure.
Accusing others of brexit bias whilst gleefully using doubtfilly sourced anecdata rather than looking at the actual inflation rates, where the UK is lower than the USA and... the EU.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
The problem with Conservative Votes of No Confidence is they rarely succeed.
To my knowledge, only two have brought about a direct change of leader - Thatcher lost under the old rules and of course IDS in 2003 (the only VoNC of a Conservative LOTO).
Most fail though there is often a residual impact - May was broken by just having 200 MPs support her - Major managed 218 as I recall but that left a strong sense of a party divided and that's the thing. Voters tend not to back parties which don't look united and if a significant minority don't back the leader the illusion of unity is difficult to create.
At the moment, the Conservatives look divided and Labour looks united - that may be illusion but it's a convincing illusion for now.
Thatcher never lost a vote of confidence, she won the first round of the leadership challenge - but failed her own bar of success and elected to stand down.
May (and I suspect Johnson would be the same) didn’t stand down voluntarily as the 50% threshold under the current system was not met. The rebels need half the PCP, not just the 54 letter-writers.
There were a lot of Labour ‘activists’ rather upset with the defection this week - which was hillarious to watch from a long way away!
Dr. Foxy, it was those who love the EU that denied the promised Lisbon referendum.
A softer departure, whether good or bad is a matter of judgement, was thrice offered and thrice the pro-EU Commons voted against it.
Mr. Alistair, that sounds very irksome, and also unfair given the situation was known about when you were making the bets.
It's worked out all right for me because the voiding of Novax behaviour was known about before I placed the bets. What I couldn't work out was how that would work in practice which is why I placed a couple of small bets on because I wanted to see what would happen.
What happened was chaos.
Incidentally I've found what Betfair thinks is my Voided bets for the tournament and they are a load of complete nonsense, listing only a single back and lay of Novax and a lay of Casper Rudd. That is absolutely not what my book looked like!
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
UK supplying Ukraine with arms and personnel will be very well received by the Baltic states
It’s definitely being received very well in Kiev, and widely reported in the media. The Ukrainians (and the Baltics) know who their friends are, and thankfully the UK is one of their closest friends.
What on earth are Germany playing at? Last time they allied with the Russians was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and that didn't exactly end well.
I’m not betting on this, but it looks to me like the value is on 2024 or later at 18%.
Astonished it went down to 5% (20/1). If you’re brave, it looks like a good selection on which to place a speculative unmatched back at long odds. I assume smarkets has an overround bot?
Posting a bit early, before morning check going stick and non runners, I might sleep in if I get comfortable. I have fallen off horses so many times my back and hip not happy from time to time.
All three PB Racing Shrewdies tipped a winner last week, yours truly 2/4
I appreciate not every gambler loves sharing and sharing publicly. I suspect though some reading PB may be betting on horse racing regular particularly the Saturday coverage, I will be placing at least Lucky 15 today and means a degree of “due diligence” on my choices - I’m a open and honest girl I don’t mind sharing what led to my decision even if it likely a illegal mix of chemicals 😵💫
It’s my chance of contributing something back to the site actually 🙂 as I know nothing about anti tank drones, Epidemiology, chimpanzee testicles, or how 200 conservative PMs can collectively lose their spines at the same time.
My Lucky 15 today and my reasons
ASCOT - 13:45 - Stellar Magic (NAP) Secret weapon on my betting slip. Just the 4 races under rules in career so far, 2 wins at this distance.
HAYDOCK - 14:00 - Hunters Call Has form, but not like the favourite of this race, I’m betting against Tommys Oscar managing 4 in a row. I do such things sometimes. Maybe today it will work.
ASCOT - 14:55 - Amour De Nuit (LONG SHOT) Based on form in last race, and previous history for being there or thereabouts.
ASCOT - 15:35 - Amoola Gold (THE GIRLS LOST IT) Alcohol, Tranquillisers, pickled eggs, a bad back and bad night means I am overlooking its priced at 100-1? With a bit of looking into its history and there is no way it should be priced at that in this small field.
Good luck 🙋♀️
Good luck. Amour de Nuit is a non-runner btw. Hunters Call is 12 and Amoola Gold is, well, good luck.
My own tentative itv yankee is as follows but is subject to change:- Ascot 1.45 Fils d'Oudaries so against you there Ascot 2.20 Anything for Love Haydock 2.35 Empire Steel Ascot 2.55 Knight in Dubai
Anything for Love will have silly money on it from Meat Loaf mourners
I’m hoping now that he’s sadly died his lawyer will call a press conference and open a sealed envelope which will reveal exactly what Meatloaf wasn’t prepared to do for love. One of the great mysteries of life finally solved.
Alternatively you could just read the lyrics. From memory
"And sooner or later you will be screwing around"
No I won't do that.
That’s a shame - I thought it would be something really bad like wearing brown shoes with a suit.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
UK supplying Ukraine with arms and personnel will be very well received by the Baltic states
It’s definitely being received very well in Kiev, and widely reported in the media. The Ukrainians (and the Baltics) know who their friends are, and thankfully the UK is one of their closest friends.
What on earth are Germany playing at? Last time they allied with the Russians was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and that didn't exactly end well.
The pact worked out great for them. What didn't go so well was when they ended it and went to war with Russia, that went pretty badly if memory serves.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
UK supplying Ukraine with arms and personnel will be very well received by the Baltic states
It’s definitely being received very well in Kiev, and widely reported in the media. The Ukrainians (and the Baltics) know who their friends are, and thankfully the UK is one of their closest friends.
What on earth are Germany playing at? Last time they allied with the Russians was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and that didn't exactly end well.
Germany has been an irresponsible actor on the European stage since at least 2010.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
Most do, yes. 16% of cyclists run red lights according to one study.
34% asked what lights are you talking about?
And the other 50% of cyclists were riding on the pavement.
This is nonsense. But I get why a few slower cyclists/children do - car drivers are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards.
I drive, cycle, run and walk. When I've been out and about, I've seen bad drivers, cyclists, runners and walkers. (whispers quietly): at times I've been a poor driver, cyclists, runner and walker.
Cyclists can be rude, entitled and dangerous; a couple of years ago I had to do some first aid on a child hit by a kid cycling outside the school. But so can drivers, runners and walkers.
As an aside, cycling on pavements is okay IME, as long as the cyclist realises he does not have right of way and is always ready to stop, and uses his bell. In fact, having recently taught a little 'un to cycle, I'd argue that teaching to cycle kids on (quiet) pavements is vital.
And Boardman is a fool: helmets work. And bells, too.
On topic, The Times have picked up on something I've mentioned on here a few times.
Johnson, friends say, will do everything he can to remain in power. “The prime minister is literally the most competitive person imaginable,” one said. “He wants to outlast Dave [Cameron]. He won’t accept the last Etonian PM having survived longer than him.”
Thatcher never lost a vote of confidence, she won the first round of the leadership challenge - but failed her own bar of success and elected to stand down.
May (and I suspect Johnson would be the same) didn’t stand down voluntarily as the 50% threshold under the current system was not met. The rebels need half the PCP, not just the 54 letter-writers.
There were a lot of Labour ‘activists’ rather upset with the defection this week - which was hillarious to watch from a long way away!
The difference between a challenge and a VoNC is often moot - it's rarely about the challenger and more about the leader.
IDS therefore stands, if we take the definition to its pedantic extent, as the sole Conservative leader ousted via a VoNC.
If what you say is right, Johnson could lose a VoNC 160-170 with the rest abstaining but since those opposed had failed to account for half the parliamentary party he would remain leader. That would of course cement the final similarity between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn.
I do agree the Wakeford defection has backfired slightly for Labour and Starmer - had he remained in the Conservative fold and a VoNC happened and Johnson survived, he could have defected then. As one or two others have said, his defection probably blunted the rebels at exactly the wrong time.
Nonetheless, as the first Tory-Labour defection in a generation, it was damaging despite your apparent hilarity which I'm sure is extending to the current polls about which you must be in hysterics.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Cycling skews towards richer people - cycling UKs own website admits as much. Amazed anyone would guess otherwise.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
The professional delivery riders and “Lycra Louts” on £10k bikes are the problem, not working class people.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Johnson should certainly go - not only as the one ultimately responsible for these parties taking place, but for not being forthcoming with confessions and apologies. One gets the impression that his regret is more that this was found out rather than the parties happened, and, in classic Corbynite fashion, he genuinely seems to blame the media for covering this.
What I don't fully understand is the demand for him to go right this instant, and that if he doesn't go, he will tarnish the entire brand for a decade.
After the 2019 election, we were informed that Corbyn had toxified the Labour brand and that it would not recover for a generation.
Sir Kier, who served in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and so presumably sat in many private meetings with him, discovered that the man was racist (or at the very least had a blind spot to certain forms of racism) only after the result of an enquiry and Corbyn's response to it, at which point he expelled him from the party. Sir Kier also devised Labour's Brexit policy for the 2019 election, which some might consider a factor in Labour's defeat, even convincing the lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn to adopt and endorse it. Prior to that he turned down any proposed Brexit deals from the May government, even rejecting those parts that were directly copied and pasted from the Labour 2017 manifesto. He now supports, surely with great sincerity, a policy of Make Brexit Work.
This would seem to indicate how quickly a party can reinvent itself. All it requires is politicians who can read the weather and a certain amount of pragmatism and flexibility of principle. You can even do it with someone from the old regime if they are not perceived to be tarnished by it.
From the Tories' point of view the sensible thing to do is wait to see who else is implicated in this whole affair - whether politician or civil servant. It would be bad for them (though hilarious for everyone else) if they appoint a leader who turns out to have had their own booze up.
Notwithstanding the above; apart from Johnson, the cabinet members who probably need to leave for a perceived 'fresh start' in the direction of the government would be people like Rees-Mogg, Patel and Raab, maybe more. Others, like Truss and Javid, have served under Cameron, May and Johnson so seem to be flexible enough to stay on under a potential new regime, assuming neither became leader.
Besides which, this site has been very entertaining during the period of Johnson's leadership of the Tories. Ever since he became leader the posts about him have been delightfully bitchy and increasingly deranged. It's a flavour of writing I shall miss when Johnson is replaced.
You well do well on PB if you are one of those people who expect phrases to be literally true.
The "unelectable for a decade" bit for Labour is at least half true since Corbyn was elected 7 ago years in 2015 and Labour has not won the last two elections. If they win 2024 (assuming it takes place then), then it will be 9 years. Near enough a decade, but not actually one.
Likewise the "Unelectable for a generation" was 13 years and 4 elections last time. The time before that was 18 years and 4 (5?) elections, but what both of those periods had was credible government. I would say that the Conservatives were generally more competent than Labour at getting stuff done, but compared to the current shambolic leadership both historic Labour and historic Conservatives were much harder for an opposition to beat.
If Labour cannot beat this lot then they really are unelectable...
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
Most do, yes. 16% of cyclists run red lights according to one study.
34% asked what lights are you talking about?
And the other 50% of cyclists were riding on the pavement.
This is nonsense. But I get why a few slower cyclists/children do - car drivers are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards.
There are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards all over the place (including Number Ten!)
Such people are more dangerous when in control of a 2 tonne car rather than a 20 kg bicycle - and safer still when walking.
One of the reasons that making a cycle lane by painting a bicycle smiley on a pavement is so annoying, is that it makes it less pleasant for people to walk.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
The professional delivery riders and “Lycra Louts” on £10k bikes are the problem, not working class people.
On topic, The Times have picked up on something I've mentioned on here a few times.
Johnson, friends say, will do everything he can to remain in power. “The prime minister is literally the most competitive person imaginable,” one said. “He wants to outlast Dave [Cameron]. He won’t accept the last Etonian PM having survived longer than him.”
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
Most do, yes. 16% of cyclists run red lights according to one study.
34% asked what lights are you talking about?
And the other 50% of cyclists were riding on the pavement.
This is nonsense. But I get why a few slower cyclists/children do - car drivers are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards.
There are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards all over the place (including Number Ten!)
Such people are more dangerous when in control of a 2 tonne car rather than a 20 kg bicycle - and safer still when walking.
One of the reasons that making a cycle lane by painting a bicycle smiley on a pavement is so annoying, is that it makes it less pleasant for people to walk.
If you run a red light round here you're likely to get crushed by a lorry-load of sheep en route to the abattoir. Life is sweet and they don't care.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
Most do, yes. 16% of cyclists run red lights according to one study.
34% asked what lights are you talking about?
And the other 50% of cyclists were riding on the pavement.
This is nonsense. But I get why a few slower cyclists/children do - car drivers are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards.
I drive, cycle, run and walk. When I've been out and about, I've seen bad drivers, cyclists, runners and walkers. (whispers quietly): at times I've been a poor driver, cyclists, runner and walker.
Cyclists can be rude, entitled and dangerous; a couple of years ago I had to do some first aid on a child hit by a kid cycling outside the school. But so can drivers, runners and walkers.
As an aside, cycling on pavements is okay IME, as long as the cyclist realises he does not have right of way and is always ready to stop, and uses his bell. In fact, having recently taught a little 'un to cycle, I'd argue that teaching to cycle kids on (quiet) pavements is vital.
And Boardman is a fool: helmets work. And bells, too.
I agree with all this, and drive regularly (though only out to the Highlands, use the bike for everything else).
But the rules have to heavily weighted towards pedestrians and cyclists (in that order) because they are so much more vulnerable in the event of a collision. If that pisses off car drivers, so be it.
I've had one cycle>pedestrian collision so far, when someone stepped out in front of me. I flipped off the bike and hurt my arm, while the other person was fine. It's basically the same problem as with electric cars - too quiet.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Thatcher never lost a vote of confidence, she won the first round of the leadership challenge - but failed her own bar of success and elected to stand down.
May (and I suspect Johnson would be the same) didn’t stand down voluntarily as the 50% threshold under the current system was not met. The rebels need half the PCP, not just the 54 letter-writers.
There were a lot of Labour ‘activists’ rather upset with the defection this week - which was hillarious to watch from a long way away!
The difference between a challenge and a VoNC is often moot - it's rarely about the challenger and more about the leader.
IDS therefore stands, if we take the definition to its pedantic extent, as the sole Conservative leader ousted via a VoNC.
If what you say is right, Johnson could lose a VoNC 160-170 with the rest abstaining but since those opposed had failed to account for half the parliamentary party he would remain leader. That would of course cement the final similarity between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn.
I do agree the Wakeford defection has backfired slightly for Labour and Starmer - had he remained in the Conservative fold and a VoNC happened and Johnson survived, he could have defected then. As one or two others have said, his defection probably blunted the rebels at exactly the wrong time.
Nonetheless, as the first Tory-Labour defection in a generation, it was damaging despite your apparent hilarity which I'm sure is extending to the current polls about which you must be in hysterics.
IIRC the Tory leadership vote threshold is 50% +1 of the votes cast, rather than of the whole PCP.
The funny bit was watching the Corbynista on Twitter go mad when they should have been celebrating, Wednesday was of course a terrible day for the Tories and a great day for Labour.
Yes, the side-effect appears to be that the Tory rebels are holding off for a few days longer.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
The Carrie issue is why I think Lynton Crosby will turn it down. He'll end up in the same position as Dom where Carrie wants something and Boris can't deny her because she can withhold sex.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Cycling skews towards richer people - cycling UKs own website admits as much. Amazed anyone would guess otherwise.
Not in a city with lots of people my age.
In PB-land, where people spend £5k on a bike without a moment's thought, this is probably the case.
I think you need to split cyclists up into those who cycle because they can't afford a car, and MAMILs.
Freedman tickling my prejudices nicely in the Guradian:
We need have no illusions about the Conservative party of old. We know its record. We know that Margaret Thatcher had her own kind of revolutionary zeal, just as we know the destructive impact of David Cameron’s austerity. But there were lines it dared not cross, monarchy and the union among them. This is a different animal. Brexit transformed it from a conservative party into a national-populist party. Its instincts now are those of Viktor Orbán, funnelling public money and jobs to ideological allies, ready to burn down even the most valued institutions that stand in its way. Of course, it has contempt for the people, as all populists ultimately do. It even had contempt for the Queen on the night of her greatest grief. So let’s not pretend these faults were Johnson’s alone. Brexit is the virus. Boris Johnson was only ever its most visible carrier.
It’s a good article, the fuck business, disrespect HM, break the BBC, scrap the Union Tory party are anything but conservative.
What a load of crap
Alternatively: if “Brexit was the virus’ then the British europhile Establishment were the arrogant scientists in the crappy BSL2 virology lab which fucked around with British democracy in evil ways for thirty years, seeing how it responded to referendums constantly promised then denied, injecting venom into the humanized mice of the people, until eventually this nasty virus escaped from the lab and destroyed everything the scientists had hoped for. Wankers
Brexiteers continuing to blame Remainers for the problems caused by Brexit still.
I saw one estimate that the customs delays in Kent are adding about £400 per crossing in cost to the logistics companies, mostly in lost costs while queuing. Quite some inflationary pressure.
Not at all. Brexit is causing problems. So what
This is not my argument. The question is What caused Brexit. It did not just appear like some magical zoonotic bug when a pangolin sodomised a fruit bat
It came from 30 years of dangerous experiments with democratic consent, by the British elite. The analogy is precise
"30 years of dangerous experiments with democratic consent, by the British elite."
Gosh. Big stuff. I'll add it to the list I'm maintaining of pseudy "reasons for Brexit" advanced by its more literate apologists.
A pretty long list it is too - it being exceedingly common for people who have engaged in a piece of irrational stupidity to seek to retrofit a rational explanation.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
This is where selling our companies, and even our football clubs, to foreigners, and especially Americans, does not help. It means profits (and in the case of railways, subsidies!) flow out of the country, adding to the deficit.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Cycling skews towards richer people - cycling UKs own website admits as much. Amazed anyone would guess otherwise.
Not in a city with lots of people my age.
In PB-land, where people spend £5k on a bike without a moment's thought, this is probably the case.
I think you need to split cyclists up into those who cycle because they can't afford a car, and MAMILs.
Maybe in PB Land.
Also in the UK, where the richest are 62% more likely to cycle than the poorest. You don't get to make up your own facts because you think your experience is typical.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves
That's one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever seen
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
I'm not a fan of cycling and have the usual experiences with aggressive cyclists but of course it's valuable both for health and pollution reduction, and the reasons why cyclists have to worry about careless drivers are obvious. I'm dstruck by the total contrast in attitudes here compared with Denmark (where cycling is something nearly everyone does sometimes - I used to know a Supreme Court judge who cycled to work), and as Foxy suggests the obvious difference is ubiquitous cycle lanes, so the main reason for motorist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian aggro evaporates.
Cycling without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt - both are both mildly liberating and utterly stupid. I don't think it's proven that drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists, and that sounds really unlikely - does anyone think, even subconsciously, "I'll risk driving over this fellow because he's wearing a helmet?" A dangerously-driving prat will be the same prat regardless.
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
Most do, yes. 16% of cyclists run red lights according to one study.
34% asked what lights are you talking about?
And the other 50% of cyclists were riding on the pavement.
This is nonsense. But I get why a few slower cyclists/children do - car drivers are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards.
I drive, cycle, run and walk. When I've been out and about, I've seen bad drivers, cyclists, runners and walkers. (whispers quietly): at times I've been a poor driver, cyclists, runner and walker.
Cyclists can be rude, entitled and dangerous; a couple of years ago I had to do some first aid on a child hit by a kid cycling outside the school. But so can drivers, runners and walkers.
As an aside, cycling on pavements is okay IME, as long as the cyclist realises he does not have right of way and is always ready to stop, and uses his bell. In fact, having recently taught a little 'un to cycle, I'd argue that teaching to cycle kids on (quiet) pavements is vital.
And Boardman is a fool: helmets work. And bells, too.
I agree with all this, and drive regularly (though only out to the Highlands, use the bike for everything else).
But the rules have to heavily weighted towards pedestrians and cyclists (in that order) because they are so much more vulnerable in the event of a collision. If that pisses off car drivers, so be it.
I've had one cycle>pedestrian collision so far, when someone stepped out in front of me. I flipped off the bike and hurt my arm, while the other person was fine. It's basically the same problem as with electric cars - too quiet.
An issue is - IMV - cyclists often go far too fast, even when they don't have right-of-way. Including myself, at times. There's one young @ssshat who goes around a wining road in the village cutting across into the other lane - when there's a good cycle path on the other side. I *try* to drive defensively. It's a good idea to cycle defensively too.
And don't get me started on electric scooters ...
Roads have to work for everyone - and too many in the cycling lobby want them just for themselves IMO.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
The Carrie issue is why I think Lynton Crosby will turn it down. He'll end up in the same position as Dom where Carrie wants something and Boris can't deny her because she can withhold sex.
Cycling without a helmet is as stupid as driving without a seat belt.
Go on then. Give us the figures for reduction in risk of serious injury and death for wearing a seat belt and compare to wearing a helmet while cycling.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
I'm not a fan of cycling and have the usual experiences with aggressive cyclists but of course it's valuable both for health and pollution reduction, and the reasons why cyclists have to worry about careless drivers are obvious. I'm dstruck by the total contrast in attitudes here compared with Denmark (where cycling is something nearly everyone does sometimes - I used to know a Supreme Court judge who cycled to work), and as Foxy suggests the obvious difference is ubiquitous cycle lanes, so the main reason for motorist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian aggro evaporates.
Cycling without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt - both are both mildly liberating and utterly stupid. I don't think it's proven that drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists, and that sounds really unlikely - does anyone think, even subconsciously, "I'll risk driving over this fellow because he's wearing a helmet?" A dangerously-driving prat will be the same prat regardless.
Cycling lanes don't remove the the aggro - just as annoying to see vast amounts of money spent on poorly used facilities for road users not paying tax, resulting in less space for pedestrians and cars.
Full disclosure - I'm from a cycling family, and have several relatives who rode to a very high level. Still can't stand the selfish psycho's you run in to far too often being a menace to all other road users.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
I ride bikes and used to ride horses. Collapsing foam helmet systems are life savers.
The small percentage of moron cyclists are almost certainly moron drivers who have taken up a hobby.
In Richmond Park, on a Saturday/Sunday morning, there is a small, but noticeable contingent of those who rock up in the largest 4x4 and unload their bikes. It is also quite noticeable how they are received by the other cyclists....
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
The professional delivery riders and “Lycra Louts” on £10k bikes are the problem, not working class people.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Also if they want an elections guy why not try tempting back the chap who supposedly masterminded the 2019 campaign, Levido? Same company I think.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves
That's one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever seen
There were a couple of postings upthread saying much the same - this would be the crisis that tears the EU apart etc. There were a few yesterday about how the French will tear the EU apart when they realise how little influence they have. At one time the Greeks were going to tear the EU apart with Grexit and then it was the UK's turn.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
We made serious mistakes in allowing the next generation of turbines to be imported but we were stuck in the EU at the time and did not control our trade policy. Hopefully we will do better with our next generation. But over their life times the imported turbines and panels will save multiple times their cost in imports.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
I'm not a fan of cycling and have the usual experiences with aggressive cyclists but of course it's valuable both for health and pollution reduction, and the reasons why cyclists have to worry about careless drivers are obvious. I'm dstruck by the total contrast in attitudes here compared with Denmark (where cycling is something nearly everyone does sometimes - I used to know a Supreme Court judge who cycled to work), and as Foxy suggests the obvious difference is ubiquitous cycle lanes, so the main reason for motorist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian aggro evaporates.
Cycling without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt - both are both mildly liberating and utterly stupid. I don't think it's proven that drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists, and that sounds really unlikely - does anyone think, even subconsciously, "I'll risk driving over this fellow because he's wearing a helmet?" A dangerously-driving prat will be the same prat regardless.
Cycling lanes don't remove the the aggro - just as annoying to see vast amounts of money spent on poorly used facilities for road users not paying tax, resulting in less space for pedestrians and cars.
Full disclosure - I'm from a cycling family, and have several relatives who rode to a very high level. Still can't stand the selfish psycho's you run in to far too often being a menace to all other road users.
They certainly increase the aggro when the cycle lanes are so rubbish everyone cycles on the road anyway.
I recommend listening to Nick Robinson's most recent Political thinking podcast: an interview with Steve Baker.
He is waiting for the Gray report but says this looks like checkmate against Johnson. He says that Gray is incorruptable.
He would send a letter in - I think he expects to - but will not "organise" against Johnson. Rather, he will be looking for the Cabinet for leadership. He says that "Johnson's diehards are greatly outnumbered".
Anyone who things that the Covid Recovery Group will act en masse is mistaken.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
UK supplying Ukraine with arms and personnel will be very well received by the Baltic states
It’s definitely being received very well in Kiev, and widely reported in the media. The Ukrainians (and the Baltics) know who their friends are, and thankfully the UK is one of their closest friends.
What on earth are Germany playing at? Last time they allied with the Russians was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and that didn't exactly end well.
Germany has been an irresponsible actor on the European stage since at least 2010.
Couldn't describe Kaiser Wilhelm II as responsible in European terms, either.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
We made serious mistakes in allowing the next generation of turbines to be imported but we were stuck in the EU at the time and did not control our trade policy. Hopefully we will do better with our next generation. But over their life times the imported turbines and panels will save multiple times their cost in imports.
Will they? They're largely locked in to long term above market prices. The UK bill payer has effectively been forced to pay for the entire world to benefit from the learning curve, given we have more than half the whole globe's offshore wind.
So we're all stuck paying for the crap early stage tech, and now the shiny German and Danish factories that built it can benefit by exporting decent stuff to everywhere else.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves
That's one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever seen
There were a couple of postings upthread saying much the same - this would be the crisis that tears the EU apart etc. There were a few yesterday about how the French will tear the EU apart when they realise how little influence they have. At one time the Greeks were going to tear the EU apart with Grexit and then it was the UK's turn.
Indeed, and despite everything it staggers on. Ditto the UK. The forces acting against those pushing both Unions apart are huge.
I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about.
Notice also the absence of lycra. Cycling in liveable cycleable cities is not about a mad dash to the next set of lights.
Most do, yes. 16% of cyclists run red lights according to one study.
34% asked what lights are you talking about?
And the other 50% of cyclists were riding on the pavement.
This is nonsense. But I get why a few slower cyclists/children do - car drivers are rude, entitled, dangerous bastards.
I drive, cycle, run and walk. When I've been out and about, I've seen bad drivers, cyclists, runners and walkers. (whispers quietly): at times I've been a poor driver, cyclists, runner and walker.
Cyclists can be rude, entitled and dangerous; a couple of years ago I had to do some first aid on a child hit by a kid cycling outside the school. But so can drivers, runners and walkers.
As an aside, cycling on pavements is okay IME, as long as the cyclist realises he does not have right of way and is always ready to stop, and uses his bell. In fact, having recently taught a little 'un to cycle, I'd argue that teaching to cycle kids on (quiet) pavements is vital.
And Boardman is a fool: helmets work. And bells, too.
I agree with all this, and drive regularly (though only out to the Highlands, use the bike for everything else).
But the rules have to heavily weighted towards pedestrians and cyclists (in that order) because they are so much more vulnerable in the event of a collision. If that pisses off car drivers, so be it.
I've had one cycle>pedestrian collision so far, when someone stepped out in front of me. I flipped off the bike and hurt my arm, while the other person was fine. It's basically the same problem as with electric cars - too quiet.
An issue is - IMV - cyclists often go far too fast, even when they don't have right-of-way. Including myself, at times. There's one young @ssshat who goes around a wining road in the village cutting across into the other lane - when there's a good cycle path on the other side. I *try* to drive defensively. It's a good idea to cycle defensively too.
And don't get me started on electric scooters ...
Roads have to work for everyone - and too many in the cycling lobby want them just for themselves IMO.
I bought my most recent bicycle - a heavy steel Pashley Roadster Sovereign - partly because it would slow me down, encourage me to cycle in a more relaxed way, and enjoy the journey, as opposed to trying to go as fast as possible, and becoming irate when inevitably delayed by one thing or another.
There are definitely some cyclists who should be at a veledrome.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
This is where selling our companies, and even our football clubs, to foreigners, and especially Americans, does not help. It means profits (and in the case of railways, subsidies!) flow out of the country, adding to the deficit.
Of course. But we must sell our companies, infrastructure, government bonds and London flats to exactly the same value as we need to fund our current account deficit. The 2 have to balance. The long term consequence is that we do indeed become a rentier economy with the profits bled off.
Investment in infrastructure, such as lagoons, that reduces the sell off is essential for UK PLC. It is classic import substitution.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
I'm not a fan of cycling and have the usual experiences with aggressive cyclists but of course it's valuable both for health and pollution reduction, and the reasons why cyclists have to worry about careless drivers are obvious. I'm dstruck by the total contrast in attitudes here compared with Denmark (where cycling is something nearly everyone does sometimes - I used to know a Supreme Court judge who cycled to work), and as Foxy suggests the obvious difference is ubiquitous cycle lanes, so the main reason for motorist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian aggro evaporates.
Cycling without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt - both are both mildly liberating and utterly stupid. I don't think it's proven that drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists, and that sounds really unlikely - does anyone think, even subconsciously, "I'll risk driving over this fellow because he's wearing a helmet?" A dangerously-driving prat will be the same prat regardless.
No, but you might think "that prat isn't wearing a helmet, he's likely to do something else stupid".
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Cycling skews towards richer people - cycling UKs own website admits as much. Amazed anyone would guess otherwise.
Not in a city with lots of people my age.
In PB-land, where people spend £5k on a bike without a moment's thought, this is probably the case.
I think you need to split cyclists up into those who cycle because they can't afford a car, and MAMILs.
Maybe in PB Land.
Also in the UK, where the richest are 62% more likely to cycle than the poorest. You don't get to make up your own facts because you think your experience is typical.
I might go away and do some analysis on this, then. Key questions:
- are cyclists are more likely to live in cities, and get paid more? If we adjust for income AHC, does this hold? - what is relative cost of owning a car in a city? (Parking permits, insurance etc) - how does that 62% figure hold up against car drivers? Are car drivers still richer? - What is the bike used for: social/business/commute? - bikes are so expensive (my rubbish one was £1000!) that, even while cheaper than cars, you still have to be relatively rich to afford one?
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
Or more commonly, wearing headphones. Especially noise-cancelling ones.
(I wear headphones whilst out running. But I listen to speech, not music, on low volume, and do not use noise-cancelling phones.)
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
UK supplying Ukraine with arms and personnel will be very well received by the Baltic states
It’s definitely being received very well in Kiev, and widely reported in the media. The Ukrainians (and the Baltics) know who their friends are, and thankfully the UK is one of their closest friends.
What on earth are Germany playing at? Last time they allied with the Russians was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and that didn't exactly end well.
Germany has been an irresponsible actor on the European stage since at least 2010.
Couldn't describe Kaiser Wilhelm II as responsible in European terms, either.
Or Bismarck, with his Russlandspolitik.
Germany has always had an obsession with Russia - Prussia's kings were said to fear it more than God. And the Social Democrats have a fondness for shady dealings with it going back to the 1970s. When Russia is relatively benevolent that doesn't matter too much, but under Putin it's obviously a problem for the free world.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Cycling skews towards richer people - cycling UKs own website admits as much. Amazed anyone would guess otherwise.
Not in a city with lots of people my age.
In PB-land, where people spend £5k on a bike without a moment's thought, this is probably the case.
I think you need to split cyclists up into those who cycle because they can't afford a car, and MAMILs.
Maybe in PB Land.
Also in the UK, where the richest are 62% more likely to cycle than the poorest. You don't get to make up your own facts because you think your experience is typical.
I might go away and do some analysis on this, then. Key questions:
- are cyclists are more likely to live in cities, and get paid more? If we adjust for income AHC, does this hold? - what is relative cost of owning a car in a city? (Parking permits, insurance etc) - how does that 62% figure hold up against car drivers? Are car drivers still richer? - What is the bike used for: social/business/commute? - bikes are so expensive (my rubbish one was £1000!) that, even while cheaper than cars, you still have to be relatively rich to afford one?
You can buy a perfect serviceable bike for £100. Second hand, you buy for virtually nothing. Tons of poor people in West London are cyclists.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Cycling skews towards richer people - cycling UKs own website admits as much. Amazed anyone would guess otherwise.
Not in a city with lots of people my age.
In PB-land, where people spend £5k on a bike without a moment's thought, this is probably the case.
I think you need to split cyclists up into those who cycle because they can't afford a car, and MAMILs.
Maybe in PB Land.
Also in the UK, where the richest are 62% more likely to cycle than the poorest. You don't get to make up your own facts because you think your experience is typical.
I might go away and do some analysis on this, then. Key questions:
- are cyclists are more likely to live in cities, and get paid more? If we adjust for income AHC, does this hold? - what is relative cost of owning a car in a city? (Parking permits, insurance etc) - how does that 62% figure hold up against car drivers? Are car drivers still richer? - What is the bike used for: social/business/commute? - bikes are so expensive (my rubbish one was £1000!) that, even while cheaper than cars, you still have to be relatively rich to afford one?
The figures are all available on on the ONS.
The bottom quintile doesn't really move off the sofa full stop.
After that the other 4 quintiles are roughly equally likely to use a car, whilst there is a clear trend towards increased cycling in the richer quintiles.
Given your young, urban frame of reference, I suspect the problem here is you and your friends may consider yourselves poorer than you really are in a national context.
The reality of the data is clear - cycling is, on average, a middle class activity. Cars are the practical reality of life for most people regardless of demographics.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Nice to see someone refer to 'trade deficit' and 'balance of payments'. Add 'food security' and 'energy security' and you've got the makings of a decent policy programme.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
Bells are good but getting the timing right is tricky - you end up with people jumping all over the shop. The classic is dog walkers who end up on the opposite side from the dog.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
We made serious mistakes in allowing the next generation of turbines to be imported but we were stuck in the EU at the time and did not control our trade policy. Hopefully we will do better with our next generation. But over their life times the imported turbines and panels will save multiple times their cost in imports.
Will they? They're largely locked in to long term above market prices. The UK bill payer has effectively been forced to pay for the entire world to benefit from the learning curve, given we have more than half the whole globe's offshore wind.
So we're all stuck paying for the crap early stage tech, and now the shiny German and Danish factories that built it can benefit by exporting decent stuff to everywhere else.
& if that helps to head off a climate apocalypse then it will be money well spent.
Look: if we burn all the coal & oil in the ground then we are completely fucked. Getting the price of non-CO2 emitting technologies below the running cost of burning coal & putting every coal-fired power station out of business as a result is worth the cost of a few wind turbines many times over. If we end up paying more of that cost than other countries, so be it - it’s still better than the alternative of not replacing coal.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
Or more commonly, wearing headphones. Especially noise-cancelling ones.
(I wear headphones whilst out running. But I listen to speech, not music, on low volume, and do not use noise-cancelling phones.)
That had never occurred to me as a problem! But yes, so it must be. When I was young you could tell the deaf children because they were the ones with earpieces and wires. Now it's the other way round!
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
Bells are good but getting the timing right is tricky - you end up with people jumping all over the shop. The classic is dog walkers who end up on the opposite side from the dog.
That's why you slow down as well.
Sadly, I caused a little incident on the misguided busway a while back whilst approaching three women from behind. I slowed, rang my bell, and one of them looked behind and tripped up, spraining her ankle. The same thing would probably have happened if I had shouted.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
We made serious mistakes in allowing the next generation of turbines to be imported but we were stuck in the EU at the time and did not control our trade policy. Hopefully we will do better with our next generation. But over their life times the imported turbines and panels will save multiple times their cost in imports.
Will they? They're largely locked in to long term above market prices. The UK bill payer has effectively been forced to pay for the entire world to benefit from the learning curve, given we have more than half the whole globe's offshore wind.
So we're all stuck paying for the crap early stage tech, and now the shiny German and Danish factories that built it can benefit by exporting decent stuff to everywhere else.
& if that helps to head off a climate apocalypse then it will be money well spent.
Look: if we burn all the coal & oil in the ground then we are completely fucked. Getting the price of non-CO2 emitting technologies below the running cost of burning coal & putting every coal-fired power station out of business as a result is worth the cost of a few wind turbines many times over. If we end up paying more of that cost than other countries, so be it - it’s still better than the alternative of not replacing coal.
We barely use coal.
We're using wind to replace nuclear. Both emissions free - 1 reliable, one utterly worthless when you need it most.
I look forward to the usual replies about storage, a pipe dream which does not exist.
As for net zero, given the stated aim is making the world colder thank otherwise, and the inevitable method is making the world poorer than it otherwise - the inevitable result is that it's going to cost an awful lot of lives.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
"How to relaunch?" will be a nice problem for him to have since it'll mean he's survived this. To that end - surviving - I gather he's reformed the team who did such a great job for him when he won the leadership.
Which they did, didn't they? They forecast not only his numbers spot on but also those for his rivals. It allowed him to 'lend' votes in each round and basically choreograph the contest. The idea is to bring that capability to bear here on the matter of 'letters' and the VONC.
Oh, I'm sure we can find something else to be deranged about
Reset in government is a differentl challenge to reset in opposition, and the policy challenge of 'where after Johnsonism' will be harder to get electorally right than the personality reset. Especially as the practical political foundation of the various flavours of this 12 years of Conservative government has perhaps been even shallower than that of New Labour and continuity centrism.
Thank you, good to be here after being a long-time lurker!
Good point about resetting while in government being tougher. These have been shallow governments, ideologically speaking. Cameron was continuity centrism, and both May and Johnson have been more economically interventionist, the latter probably more out of necessity than desire, though I don't suppose he gave it much thought. The current Conservative electorate seems to be to the left of Blair/Cameron on economics but to the right on social issues (immigration, law and order etc). That's not a party I'd personally vote for but this is probably where they need to end up in order to hold on to the seats they have gained.
Freedman tickling my prejudices nicely in the Guradian:
We need have no illusions about the Conservative party of old. We know its record. We know that Margaret Thatcher had her own kind of revolutionary zeal, just as we know the destructive impact of David Cameron’s austerity. But there were lines it dared not cross, monarchy and the union among them. This is a different animal. Brexit transformed it from a conservative party into a national-populist party. Its instincts now are those of Viktor Orbán, funnelling public money and jobs to ideological allies, ready to burn down even the most valued institutions that stand in its way. Of course, it has contempt for the people, as all populists ultimately do. It even had contempt for the Queen on the night of her greatest grief. So let’s not pretend these faults were Johnson’s alone. Brexit is the virus. Boris Johnson was only ever its most visible carrier.
It’s a good article, the fuck business, disrespect HM, break the BBC, scrap the Union Tory party are anything but conservative.
What a load of crap
Alternatively: if “Brexit was the virus’ then the British europhile Establishment were the arrogant scientists in the crappy BSL2 virology lab which fucked around with British democracy in evil ways for thirty years, seeing how it responded to referendums constantly promised then denied, injecting venom into the humanized mice of the people, until eventually this nasty virus escaped from the lab and destroyed everything the scientists had hoped for. Wankers
Brexiteers continuing to blame Remainers for the problems caused by Brexit still.
I saw one estimate that the customs delays in Kent are adding about £400 per crossing in cost to the logistics companies, mostly in lost costs while queuing. Quite some inflationary pressure.
Not at all. Brexit is causing problems. So what
This is not my argument. The question is What caused Brexit. It did not just appear like some magical zoonotic bug when a pangolin sodomised a fruit bat
It came from 30 years of dangerous experiments with democratic consent, by the British elite. The analogy is precise
Maybe you'd do better to stop nagging on about what caused Brexit all those years ago, and join us in focusing on how the considerable problems it is starting to cause can be avoided, mitigated or reversed.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
Or more commonly, wearing headphones. Especially noise-cancelling ones.
(I wear headphones whilst out running. But I listen to speech, not music, on low volume, and do not use noise-cancelling phones.)
That had never occurred to me as a problem! But yes, so it must be. When I was young you could tell the deaf children because they were the ones with earpieces and wires. Now it's the other way round!
I really fancy some of those bone headphones (Aftershokz) when my current pair die. Does anyone know if they are any good?
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves
That's one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever seen
There were a couple of postings upthread saying much the same - this would be the crisis that tears the EU apart etc. There were a few yesterday about how the French will tear the EU apart when they realise how little influence they have. At one time the Greeks were going to tear the EU apart with Grexit and then it was the UK's turn.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves
That's one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever seen
There were a couple of postings upthread saying much the same - this would be the crisis that tears the EU apart etc. There were a few yesterday about how the French will tear the EU apart when they realise how little influence they have. At one time the Greeks were going to tear the EU apart with Grexit and then it was the UK's turn.
It won't -
- The French will have to re-adjust their ideas of Europe to the reality. We can see evidence of this in French politics already. - The Greeks stayed in to keep the Euro, rather return to the default cycle implicit in a return to the Drachma. The underlying issues are still there.
The current crisis won't kill the EU. But you do have to wonder about the mentality of Germans complaining that some Eastern European states are looking to the US for defence.
An ugly thought occurs. Nord Stream 2 runs through the Baltic sea. Shallow waters, rights of innocent passage etc. It would be very easy.....
Cycling without a helmet is as stupid as driving without a seat belt.
Go on then. Give us the figures for reduction in risk of serious injury and death for wearing a seat belt and compare to wearing a helmet while cycling.
Why don't you wear a helmet while driving?
Your comparison is absurd.
You're being silly. I don't wear a helmet when driving because I have both a seat belt and an air bag while driving - do cyclists?
The evidence for helmets is overwhelming and unambiguous.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
The demise of NATO is about as prophesied as the demise of the EU.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
The Carrie issue is why I think Lynton Crosby will turn it down. He'll end up in the same position as Dom where Carrie wants something and Boris can't deny her because she can withhold sex.
No-one wants the job, because Carrie has the job.
If Johnson wants to stay in No.10, he either needs to either get Carrie away from the workplace, or let Rishi and his team run the show from No.11.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
That is not my experience, and why should the undertaking at the red traffic lights lycra clad eco-warrior leave me with a £500 bill because I didn't leave enough room between the kerb and my car? And of course he can't be caught as he negotiates the gaps in the traffic to run the red light and be on his way while we all survey the damage waiting an eternity for the light to turn green.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
Comments
2015 GE 38.4%
2014 Euros 38.5%
2011 Assembly 41.1%
2010 GE 42.0%
2009 Euros 42.2%
2007 Assembly 41.4%
2005 GE 41.8%
2004 Euros 42,2%
2003 Assembly 40.5%
2001 GE 42.7%
1999 Euros 45.4% (!!)
1998 Assembly 39.6%
1997 GE 40.2%
After the catastrophic failures of the past two weeks, @stodge once again invites you to, as an alternative to throwing it out the window or down a toilet, release your cash by investing in a scheme which makes the South Sea Bubble look like a good idea.
Yes, it's the @stodge Saturday Patent (back by unpopular demand).
This week's equine victims guaranteed to sink faster than a Conservative poll rating are:
1.10 Ascot: WINDS OF FIRE
1.20 Lingfield: MARSH LAW
2.30 Lingfield: RESILIENCE
Have a point win or each way on these though other ways of losing your money are available.
But then, crucially, I hit the cashout button. Which auto placed a couple of dozen bets again a host of players in the field - at this point I was green.
When Novax was finally voided out suddenly I was red.
The very fact that this was a cross-matched market should have meant voiding should never have been an option (because Betfair automatically creates liquidity across all options based on individual back and lays of single players - so voiding a runner would effectively void a proportion of the bets on every single player in the tournament).
Combined with the cashout behaviour this was a disaster waiting to happen for BF.
"And sooner or later you will be screwing around"
No I won't do that.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
This is not my argument. The question is What caused Brexit. It did not just appear like some magical zoonotic bug when a pangolin sodomised a fruit bat
It came from 30 years of dangerous experiments with democratic consent, by the British elite. The analogy is precise
A softer departure, whether good or bad is a matter of judgement, was thrice offered and thrice the pro-EU Commons voted against it.
Mr. Alistair, that sounds very irksome, and also unfair given the situation was known about when you were making the bets.
To my knowledge, only two have brought about a direct change of leader - Thatcher lost under the old rules and of course IDS in 2003 (the only VoNC of a Conservative LOTO).
Most fail though there is often a residual impact - May was broken by just having 200 MPs support her - Major managed 218 as I recall but that left a strong sense of a party divided and that's the thing. Voters tend not to back parties which don't look united and if a significant minority don't back the leader the illusion of unity is difficult to create.
At the moment, the Conservatives look divided and Labour looks united - that may be illusion but it's a convincing illusion for now.
- no helmet
- weave erratically as if drunk
- Attach child seat with child dummy
- 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all
- at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
May (and I suspect Johnson would be the same) didn’t stand down voluntarily as the 50% threshold under the current system was not met. The rebels need half the PCP, not just the 54 letter-writers.
There were a lot of Labour ‘activists’ rather upset with the defection this week - which was hillarious to watch from a long way away!
What happened was chaos.
Incidentally I've found what Betfair thinks is my Voided bets for the tournament and they are a load of complete nonsense, listing only a single back and lay of Novax and a lay of Casper Rudd. That is absolutely not what my book looked like!
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
I’m not betting on this, but it looks to me like the value is on 2024 or later at 18%.
Astonished it went down to 5% (20/1). If you’re brave, it looks like a good selection on which to place a speculative unmatched back at long odds. I assume smarkets has an overround bot?
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
When I've been out and about, I've seen bad drivers, cyclists, runners and walkers.
(whispers quietly): at times I've been a poor driver, cyclists, runner and walker.
Cyclists can be rude, entitled and dangerous; a couple of years ago I had to do some first aid on a child hit by a kid cycling outside the school. But so can drivers, runners and walkers.
As an aside, cycling on pavements is okay IME, as long as the cyclist realises he does not have right of way and is always ready to stop, and uses his bell. In fact, having recently taught a little 'un to cycle, I'd argue that teaching to cycle kids on (quiet) pavements is vital.
And Boardman is a fool: helmets work. And bells, too.
Johnson, friends say, will do everything he can to remain in power. “The prime minister is literally the most competitive person imaginable,” one said. “He wants to outlast Dave [Cameron]. He won’t accept the last Etonian PM having survived longer than him.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/poisonous-atmosphere-spreads-through-no-10-nest-of-adders-f5wg9pq6m
IDS therefore stands, if we take the definition to its pedantic extent, as the sole Conservative leader ousted via a VoNC.
If what you say is right, Johnson could lose a VoNC 160-170 with the rest abstaining but since those opposed had failed to account for half the parliamentary party he would remain leader. That would of course cement the final similarity between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn.
I do agree the Wakeford defection has backfired slightly for Labour and Starmer - had he remained in the Conservative fold and a VoNC happened and Johnson survived, he could have defected then. As one or two others have said, his defection probably blunted the rebels at exactly the wrong time.
Nonetheless, as the first Tory-Labour defection in a generation, it was damaging despite your apparent hilarity which I'm sure is extending to the current polls about which you must be in hysterics.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
The "unelectable for a decade" bit for Labour is at least half true since Corbyn was elected 7 ago years in 2015 and Labour has not won the last two elections. If they win 2024 (assuming it takes place then), then it will be 9 years. Near enough a decade, but not actually one.
Likewise the "Unelectable for a generation" was 13 years and 4 elections last time. The time before that was 18 years and 4 (5?) elections, but what both of those periods had was credible government. I would say that the Conservatives were generally more competent than Labour at getting stuff done, but compared to the current shambolic leadership both historic Labour and historic Conservatives were much harder for an opposition to beat.
If Labour cannot beat this lot then they really are unelectable...
Such people are more dangerous when in control of a 2 tonne car rather than a 20 kg bicycle - and safer still when walking.
One of the reasons that making a cycle lane by painting a bicycle smiley on a pavement is so annoying, is that it makes it less pleasant for people to walk.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1484642093209473032
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
But the rules have to heavily weighted towards pedestrians and cyclists (in that order) because they are so much more vulnerable in the event of a collision. If that pisses off car drivers, so be it.
I've had one cycle>pedestrian collision so far, when someone stepped out in front of me. I flipped off the bike and hurt my arm, while the other person was fine. It's basically the same problem as with electric cars - too quiet.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
The funny bit was watching the Corbynista on Twitter go mad when they should have been celebrating, Wednesday was of course a terrible day for the Tories and a great day for Labour.
Yes, the side-effect appears to be that the Tory rebels are holding off for a few days longer.
They really are taking Vlad's side..
Tanvi Madan
@tanvi_madan
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China"
"Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect
What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484641064166305795
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODmkoGQw1TU&t=1996s
In PB-land, where people spend £5k on a bike without a moment's thought, this is probably the case.
I think you need to split cyclists up into those who cycle because they can't afford a car, and MAMILs.
Gosh. Big stuff. I'll add it to the list I'm maintaining of pseudy "reasons for Brexit" advanced by its more literate apologists.
A pretty long list it is too - it being exceedingly common for people who have engaged in a piece of irrational stupidity to seek to retrofit a rational explanation.
Also in the UK, where the richest are 62% more likely to cycle than the poorest. You don't get to make up your own facts because you think your experience is typical.
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect
What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves
That's one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever seen
Cycling without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt - both are both mildly liberating and utterly stupid. I don't think it's proven that drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists, and that sounds really unlikely - does anyone think, even subconsciously, "I'll risk driving over this fellow because he's wearing a helmet?" A dangerously-driving prat will be the same prat regardless.
And don't get me started on electric scooters ...
Roads have to work for everyone - and too many in the cycling lobby want them just for themselves IMO.
Why don't you wear a helmet while driving?
Your comparison is absurd.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
Full disclosure - I'm from a cycling family, and have several relatives who rode to a very high level. Still can't stand the selfish psycho's you run in to far too often being a menace to all other road users.
The small percentage of moron cyclists are almost certainly moron drivers who have taken up a hobby.
In Richmond Park, on a Saturday/Sunday morning, there is a small, but noticeable contingent of those who rock up in the largest 4x4 and unload their bikes. It is also quite noticeable how they are received by the other cyclists....
I recommend listening to Nick Robinson's most recent Political thinking podcast: an interview with Steve Baker.
He is waiting for the Gray report but says this looks like checkmate against Johnson. He says that Gray is incorruptable.
He would send a letter in - I think he expects to - but will not "organise" against Johnson. Rather, he will be looking for the Cabinet for leadership. He says that "Johnson's diehards are greatly outnumbered".
Anyone who things that the Covid Recovery Group will act en masse is mistaken.
So we're all stuck paying for the crap early stage tech, and now the shiny German and Danish factories that built it can benefit by exporting decent stuff to everywhere else.
There are definitely some cyclists who should be at a veledrome.
Investment in infrastructure, such as lagoons, that reduces the sell off is essential for UK PLC. It is classic import substitution.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
- are cyclists are more likely to live in cities, and get paid more? If we adjust for income AHC, does this hold?
- what is relative cost of owning a car in a city? (Parking permits, insurance etc)
- how does that 62% figure hold up against car drivers? Are car drivers still richer?
- What is the bike used for: social/business/commute?
- bikes are so expensive (my rubbish one was £1000!) that, even while cheaper than cars, you still have to be relatively rich to afford one?
(I wear headphones whilst out running. But I listen to speech, not music, on low volume, and do not use noise-cancelling phones.)
Germany has always had an obsession with Russia - Prussia's kings were said to fear it more than God. And the Social Democrats have a fondness for shady dealings with it going back to the 1970s. When Russia is relatively benevolent that doesn't matter too much, but under Putin it's obviously a problem for the free world.
The bottom quintile doesn't really move off the sofa full stop.
After that the other 4 quintiles are roughly equally likely to use a car, whilst there is a clear trend towards increased cycling in the richer quintiles.
Given your young, urban frame of reference, I suspect the problem here is you and your friends may consider yourselves poorer than you really are in a national context.
The reality of the data is clear - cycling is, on average, a middle class activity. Cars are the practical reality of life for most people regardless of demographics.
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
Look: if we burn all the coal & oil in the ground then we are completely fucked. Getting the price of non-CO2 emitting technologies below the running cost of burning coal & putting every coal-fired power station out of business as a result is worth the cost of a few wind turbines many times over. If we end up paying more of that cost than other countries, so be it - it’s still better than the alternative of not replacing coal.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
Sadly, I caused a little incident on the misguided busway a while back whilst approaching three women from behind. I slowed, rang my bell, and one of them looked behind and tripped up, spraining her ankle. The same thing would probably have happened if I had shouted.
Sometimes you cannot win...
We're using wind to replace nuclear. Both emissions free - 1 reliable, one utterly worthless when you need it most.
I look forward to the usual replies about storage, a pipe dream which does not exist.
As for net zero, given the stated aim is making the world colder thank otherwise, and the inevitable method is making the world poorer than it otherwise - the inevitable result is that it's going to cost an awful lot of lives.
Which they did, didn't they? They forecast not only his numbers spot on but also those for his rivals. It allowed him to 'lend' votes in each round and basically choreograph the contest. The idea is to bring that capability to bear here on the matter of 'letters' and the VONC.
Good point about resetting while in government being tougher. These have been shallow governments, ideologically speaking. Cameron was continuity centrism, and both May and Johnson have been more economically interventionist, the latter probably more out of necessity than desire, though I don't suppose he gave it much thought. The current Conservative electorate seems to be to the left of Blair/Cameron on economics but to the right on social issues (immigration, law and order etc). That's not a party I'd personally vote for but this is probably where they need to end up in order to hold on to the seats they have gained.
- The French will have to re-adjust their ideas of Europe to the reality. We can see evidence of this in French politics already.
- The Greeks stayed in to keep the Euro, rather return to the default cycle implicit in a return to the Drachma. The underlying issues are still there.
The current crisis won't kill the EU. But you do have to wonder about the mentality of Germans complaining that some Eastern European states are looking to the US for defence.
An ugly thought occurs. Nord Stream 2 runs through the Baltic sea. Shallow waters, rights of innocent passage etc. It would be very easy.....
The evidence for helmets is overwhelming and unambiguous.
https://www.headway.org.uk/news-and-campaigns/campaigns/cycle-safety/#:~:text=A study from 2016 collected,fatal head injury by 65%.
If Johnson wants to stay in No.10, he either needs to either get Carrie away from the workplace, or let Rishi and his team run the show from No.11.