Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Well we know you have an ideological agenda so that tunes in with that.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
Um.
How you managed to pull Nazis into my friend's comment about the CofE I have no idea but it says quite a lot about you and how you manage to alienate everybody on here. Sometimes think first.
As for Putin, I loathe him. I almost alone suggested we should stop our mealy-mouthed disingenuity towards Ukraine by backing Zelensky's request for a No Fly Zone.
I'm probably more anti-Putin than anyone on here. Anyone who supports the tory party is in no position to lecture others about being insufficiently anti-Putin. You have been trousering his money into your party coffers for years: freely associating with Putin's chums, giving them safe haven in London, playing tennis matches with them, going to their fundraising dinners, handing out peerages to them, and permitting them to wash Putin's dirty money through London, siphoning off large wodges of it into the CCHQ coffers.
Physician heal thyself.
Just noticed something about HYUFD's post. Tories, by implication, don't have "ideological agendas". Who knew?
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Well we know you have an ideological agenda so that tunes in with that.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
Um.
How you managed to pull Nazis into my friend's comment about the CofE I have no idea but it says quite a lot about you and how you manage to alienate everybody on here. Sometimes think first.
As for Putin, I loathe him. I almost alone suggested we should stop our mealy-mouthed disingenuity towards Ukraine by backing Zelensky's request for a No Fly Zone.
I'm probably more anti-Putin than anyone on here. Anyone who supports the tory party is in no position to lecture others about being insufficiently anti-Putin. You have been trousering his money into your party coffers for years: freely associating with Putin's chums, giving them safe haven in London, playing tennis matches with them, going to their fundraising dinners, handing out peerages to them, and permitting them to wash Putin's dirty money through London, siphoning off large wodges of it into the CCHQ coffers.
Physician heal thyself.
The Vatican has the problem of being a city state in a country where finance is err.... heavily influenced by the literal Mafia. Quite apart from the child abuse scandals.
The CoE hasn't got anything like the same problems. They had their moments on the child abuse thing, but to a much lesser degree.
Did you ever get your security problem resolved? - that your VPN exits to a fixed IP associated with a compromised PC is very, very worrying. I would change your VPN immediately. And probably rebuild my machine from a new hard disc....
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
I get my morality from my religion not my politics ultimately
That's just as well given the example your political leaders are setting!
Who are currently relentlessly attacking the sect which is Established under the ancient settlement the 'conservative' party favours.
Mr. Dickson, interesting, it's poison in German too.
I occasionally try playing videogames auf Deutsch. My German's good enough I'm not left trying to work out how to save/load, but bad enough for much comedy to occur.
About two thirds of modern Swedish vocabulary is from German. German- and Dutch-speakers, and to a lesser extent Scots-speakers, find Swedish easy-peasy.
Two-thirds of Swedish vocab is *germanic*, not "from German" It's from Old Norse, which is North Germanic, not West Germanic.
I think Danish has more German loan words.
My bad. I miswrote. I meant to write “About one third of modern Swedish vocabulary is from German.”
Over 80% of Swedish vocabulary is Germanic, but only about one third is directly attributable to German.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
If and if and if and how much is it going to cost ?
And however much it costs to make public transport 'regular and affordable' it will still not be more convenient.
This is a country where people work in different locations to where they live, their friends and relatives live in different locations, their kids go to school in different locations, they shop in different locations, they spend their leisure time in different locations.
As long as they don't complain about "all the traffic" or mind getting fat because they never get off their arse, fine. Public transport won't work for every journey but it might work for some, and more people would use it if it weren't expensive and shit outside of London. It's good to have options - living in London we can take public transport a lot of the time, or walk or cycle easily, or drive when necessary. I do all of these, sometimes all on the same day. There are plenty of other urban or suburban environments where that would be feasible and I think many would welcome it if they had the option. Obviously those who live in the middle of nowhere have made that choice and will probably not have an option but to use a car. I think they're crazy to have chosen that lifestyle, personally, but that's their choice.
Johnson has many failings but with the number of leaks that happen from No 10 through Twitter etc and the requirements of the 24 hour news coverage, anyone being PM in the future will have a torrid time. Everything is blown up to be a scandal. I have no idea why anyone would want to be PM anymore.
No other PM in history will fuck up as often or as regularly as BoZo
If the internet existed and there was 24 hour news coverage then all PMs would have "fucked up" as bad. In the past most errors were hidden.
Can you imagine what 24-hour news and Twitter would have made of Jim Callaghan's winter of discontent?
Or Wilson and "Lady Falkender"?
Or - God forbid - if Twitter had discovered about John and Edwina?
But all would pale into insignificance compared to what a modern-day Twitterarmy would do to Fatcha!!!!!
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Stupid NIMBY, are you saying that there's plenty of housing in this country, no housing shortages and prices are nice and low in the cities due to the abundance of homes for people who need to get on the ladder to buy?
Do you ever stop to think for one second, or are you just permanently outraged regardless of reason?
If the old house building targets haven't been met then that will leave a shortage of homes that need to be made up so the house building target should be increased and met at an even higher level. Not cut the target. If you ever actually stopped to think for yourself for two seconds you might be able to understand that.
NIMBY Councils need to stop moaning about "unrealistic" targets and JFDI get it done.
Increased housebuilding in, say, Central London, will not help even a little bit with levelling up. If the government is serious about levelling up, it needs to stimulate economic activity in new towns or in those that have fallen behind. The easiest way to do this is by building new homes and refurbishing old ones. This is itself will get local economies moving, and new, cheap housing will attract people to move there.
New homes should be built where they're needed, not in order to validate a party slogan. We're not the Soviet Union.
New homes should be built in line with government policy, not to benefit property speculators. An overheated London and left behind regions is no good to anyone. Nor is building new towns a revolutionary idea. Conservative governments used to do it.
London is overheated due to a shortage of housing relative to the number of people living there, not because of an overabundance of constructed homes.
If new housing construction there sees prices come down so property speculators get burnt then I'd see that as a win/win, wouldn't you?
No it is overheated as it is a global city on a par with New York city or Paris or Singapore.
You can build more housing but it will only make a limited impact given people from all over the world will stay pay a lot of money to buy property in London. Plus you need to protect London's parks and greenspaces
There is loads of potential for building more housing in London but it needs expensive infrastructure built alongside it. Eg down my way a huge slew of housing could be built on brownfield sites down the Old Kent Road but it can only happen with the extension of the Bakerloo Line to Lewisham (cost £3bn). From a pure cost benefit point of view it makes sense but finding a mechanism for recovering the infrastructure cost is difficult, and it's not helped by the new government dogma that spending money in London is bad.
That £3B would have much more impact in the north and build at least 3-4 times as many houses. London has sucked the life out of the country for far too long.
That may or may not be true, you would have to look at the details. In London the housing would be built at a high density which would make a new transit line feasible. A similar but lower density housing development elsewhere probably wouldn't have an economical transit line, and the properties would be sold at a lower cost (because demand relative to supply is lower) so the economic case for the project would be lower. Setting up London vs the rest of the country is just Tory divide and rule, we should be able to support development everywhere it is needed.
"A new transit line"? Surely another Crossrail. Not tactful in the current circs, surely?
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
It's more a case of never interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake. That mistake in the form of Johnson needs to continue until 2024.
Remember that the policy offer that Labour fought on in 2017 was revealed only in the midst of a snap general election campaign, but still served its purpose by and large.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Well we know you have an ideological agenda so that tunes in with that.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
Um.
How you managed to pull Nazis into my friend's comment about the CofE I have no idea but it says quite a lot about you and how you manage to alienate everybody on here. Sometimes think first.
As for Putin, I loathe him. I almost alone suggested we should stop our mealy-mouthed disingenuity towards Ukraine by backing Zelensky's request for a No Fly Zone.
I'm probably more anti-Putin than anyone on here. Anyone who supports the tory party is in no position to lecture others about being insufficiently anti-Putin. You have been trousering his money into your party coffers for years: freely associating with Putin's chums, giving them safe haven in London, playing tennis matches with them, going to their fundraising dinners, handing out peerages to them, and permitting them to wash Putin's dirty money through London, siphoning off large wodges of it into the CCHQ coffers.
Physician heal thyself.
The Vatican has the problem of being a city state in a country where finance is err.... heavily influenced by the literal Mafia. Quite apart from the child abuse scandals.
The CoE hasn't got anything like the same problems.
Surprised both main parties lose a point and conservative still at the 34% mark
I would have expected a wider gap
There have been no new allegations, people already know whats happened, Labour may be pushing Partygate to far. The amount of time and money that is being wasted on it may be grating people, especially with the annoucement of yet another enquiry yesterday.
What date will the Nuremberg type trials of Partygate take place?
I agree it is a waste of time and money, but draw different conclusions as to who is to blame. Everyone knows broadly what happened. The PM broke the rules, some minor, some a bit more serious but not anything worthy of a prison sentence at all, and then repeatedly lied about it. We could have ten inquiries and that would not change.
Tory MPs are happy enough with that, lets see what the electorate thinks.
Stupid NIMBY, are you saying that there's plenty of housing in this country, no housing shortages and prices are nice and low in the cities due to the abundance of homes for people who need to get on the ladder to buy?
Do you ever stop to think for one second, or are you just permanently outraged regardless of reason?
If the old house building targets haven't been met then that will leave a shortage of homes that need to be made up so the house building target should be increased and met at an even higher level. Not cut the target. If you ever actually stopped to think for yourself for two seconds you might be able to understand that.
NIMBY Councils need to stop moaning about "unrealistic" targets and JFDI get it done.
Increased housebuilding in, say, Central London, will not help even a little bit with levelling up. If the government is serious about levelling up, it needs to stimulate economic activity in new towns or in those that have fallen behind. The easiest way to do this is by building new homes and refurbishing old ones. This is itself will get local economies moving, and new, cheap housing will attract people to move there.
New homes should be built where they're needed, not in order to validate a party slogan. We're not the Soviet Union.
New homes should be built in line with government policy, not to benefit property speculators. An overheated London and left behind regions is no good to anyone. Nor is building new towns a revolutionary idea. Conservative governments used to do it.
London is overheated due to a shortage of housing relative to the number of people living there, not because of an overabundance of constructed homes.
If new housing construction there sees prices come down so property speculators get burnt then I'd see that as a win/win, wouldn't you?
No it is overheated as it is a global city on a par with New York city or Paris or Singapore.
You can build more housing but it will only make a limited impact given people from all over the world will stay pay a lot of money to buy property in London. Plus you need to protect London's parks and greenspaces
There is loads of potential for building more housing in London but it needs expensive infrastructure built alongside it. Eg down my way a huge slew of housing could be built on brownfield sites down the Old Kent Road but it can only happen with the extension of the Bakerloo Line to Lewisham (cost £3bn). From a pure cost benefit point of view it makes sense but finding a mechanism for recovering the infrastructure cost is difficult, and it's not helped by the new government dogma that spending money in London is bad.
That £3B would have much more impact in the north and build at least 3-4 times as many houses. London has sucked the life out of the country for far too long.
That may or may not be true, you would have to look at the details. In London the housing would be built at a high density which would make a new transit line feasible. A similar but lower density housing development elsewhere probably wouldn't have an economical transit line, and the properties would be sold at a lower cost (because demand relative to supply is lower) so the economic case for the project would be lower. Setting up London vs the rest of the country is just Tory divide and rule, we should be able to support development everywhere it is needed.
"A new transit line"? Surely another Crossrail. Not tactful in the current circs, surely?
Bakerloo extension is a lot cheaper and easier than Crossrail 2 (and makes a lot of sense - it's daft having a line that ends in zone 1 instead of running across the city) but neither will get built any time soon, sadly.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Well we know you have an ideological agenda so that tunes in with that.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
Um.
How you managed to pull Nazis into my friend's comment about the CofE I have no idea but it says quite a lot about you and how you manage to alienate everybody on here. Sometimes think first.
As for Putin, I loathe him. I almost alone suggested we should stop our mealy-mouthed disingenuity towards Ukraine by backing Zelensky's request for a No Fly Zone.
I'm probably more anti-Putin than anyone on here. Anyone who supports the tory party is in no position to lecture others about being insufficiently anti-Putin. You have been trousering his money into your party coffers for years: freely associating with Putin's chums, giving them safe haven in London, playing tennis matches with them, going to their fundraising dinners, handing out peerages to them, and permitting them to wash Putin's dirty money through London, siphoning off large wodges of it into the CCHQ coffers.
Physician heal thyself.
The Vatican has the problem of being a city state in a country where finance is err.... heavily influenced by the literal Mafia. Quite apart from the child abuse scandals.
The CoE hasn't got anything like the same problems.
The CoE hasn't got anything like the same money!
The level of problems is probably related to that. The fact that Vatican banking and money flows has been used corruptly since medieval times probably doesn't help....
Johnson has many failings but with the number of leaks that happen from No 10 through Twitter etc and the requirements of the 24 hour news coverage, anyone being PM in the future will have a torrid time. Everything is blown up to be a scandal. I have no idea why anyone would want to be PM anymore.
No other PM in history will fuck up as often or as regularly as BoZo
If you mean that literally, he still has a little way to go before hitting the heights of Lord Grafton.
I wouldn't bet against him though, if the Party gives him enough time!
Morning all! "He's toast" seems to be the narrative, with even the remaining amoral Tories willing to back lies and criminality now doing so on the back foot. The utter collapse of the "lets front it out" strategy yesterday leaves only defensive plays and there are so few of those left.
They now face a mullering in the locals. Followed swiftly by the avalanche of PCNs (and worse?) from the Met, followed swiftly by the unredacted Grey report, followed swiftly by the Privilege Committee sitting to look through an absolute mountain of damning evidence.
He only got to carry on by blustering it out with the party backing him. That ended yesterday.
So, who replaces him. Sunak has been torpedoed below the water line and supposedly almost quit. Truss is an Instagram Thatcher tribute with nothing to offer. Gove is off his tits. Raab loses his seat at the election and doesn't show any signs of brain activity. Tugenwho?
I know that high thinking moral giants like HY have insisted the party would only vote for a Brexiteer, but there aren't any. And the party is going to left so reeling by Borisgate over the next few months that electing another high risk wazzock won't look sensible.
Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Your time has come.
How on earth does Jeremy Hunt get past the UKIP membership the Tories now have?
Simple - Remain is no longer an option.
Not quite that. I think the issue was that he didn’t have a strategy for getting us out of the EU negotiating bind. Flawed as Johnson’s strategy might have been (I’m not commenting) we are now out of the EU.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
It's more a case of never interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake. That mistake in the form of Johnson needs to continue until 2024.
Remember that the policy offer that Labour fought on in 2017 was revealed only in the midst of a snap general election campaign, but still served its purpose by and large.
That last point its true, but possibly only because the snap general election was called so early - we're already deeper into this parliament than the 2015 parliament lasted. But even then there was the outline known of what Corbyn's vision was and therefore what sorts of policies he was likely to have. By comparison, SKS is a blank sheet of paper.
I'm concerned by the reference to the opponent as the "enemy", too.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
Surprised both main parties lose a point and conservative still at the 34% mark
I would have expected a wider gap
There have been no new allegations, people already know whats happened, Labour may be pushing Partygate to far. The amount of time and money that is being wasted on it may be grating people, especially with the annoucement of yet another enquiry yesterday.
What date will the Nuremberg type trials of Partygate take place?
I agree it is a waste of time and money, but draw different conclusions as to who is to blame. Everyone knows broadly what happened. The PM broke the rules, some minor, some a bit more serious but not anything worthy of a prison sentence at all, and then repeatedly lied about it. We could have ten inquiries and that would not change.
Tory MPs are happy enough with that, lets see what the electorate thinks.
Hmm. Bit early to say that. We have to see who gets the legal blame for organising the lockdown breach social events. Party and Not A Party At all (etc) *organisers* could be and some were fined up to 10K. And not accepting guilt/paying the fine means prison.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
This is reminding me of the debates around train privatisation in John Major's administration. Con MPs/ministers were saying much the same thing as our resident pirate - they didn't want to be cooped up with smelly proles. I remember the minister who demanded luxury fast trains for his ilk while the secretaries etc could be in cheap and cheerful and slow trains. He didn't explain how that was possible without quadrupling every commuter line in the country.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I much prefer to use public transport. I get to knit, or read, instead of having to concentrate on driving.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
Instead they were led by a present Putin crony for half that time.
OMG I finally found a leave promise that actually delivered . Priti Patel told the Asian community to vote for Brexit so more could come to the UK .
And she actually delivered ! I’m sure those who thought by voting leave overall immigration would fall will be delighted .
Funnily the right wing press aren’t moaning about high levels of immigration now ! So it was just fellow Europeans they hated .
Your apologies for accusing them of being nasty racists are notably missing but I suppose that was to be expected.
There was a debate on here the other day about foreign student numbers in the UK. The allegation was again that because of Brexit these numbers were falling but the reality was the opposite with 2021 being the highest number for students and dependents ever, beating the previous record in 2010. It was over 450K.
Basically, if you want to come to the UK don't try to claim asylum, try to become a student of a recognised institution. If you qualify and have that potential the doors are wider open than ever. Which is certainly fine by me.
I’m delighted to see an increase in student numbers as they add a lot to the economy and enrich the country culturally . My point is that the right wing press have gone very quiet about immigration even as numbers have risen significantly. Clearly they’re embarrassed to talk about it now as it shatters the arguments they made during the referendum .
But you just pointed out it is entirely consistent with what was promised in the referendum. Make your mind up. The key promise was to take back control. We get to say who comes. We get to choose. The Rwanda plan is pie in the sky and unlikely to work but it is an attempt to exclude asylum seekers from the UK as the last category that is self choosing. The ideal is clear, the practicalities difficult.
You’d have thought that the small “practicality” of breaking international law might concern a lawyer…
Meet Suella Braverman QC ex of Dewey Cheatem and Howe
Morning all! "He's toast" seems to be the narrative, with even the remaining amoral Tories willing to back lies and criminality now doing so on the back foot. The utter collapse of the "lets front it out" strategy yesterday leaves only defensive plays and there are so few of those left.
They now face a mullering in the locals. Followed swiftly by the avalanche of PCNs (and worse?) from the Met, followed swiftly by the unredacted Grey report, followed swiftly by the Privilege Committee sitting to look through an absolute mountain of damning evidence.
He only got to carry on by blustering it out with the party backing him. That ended yesterday.
So, who replaces him. Sunak has been torpedoed below the water line and supposedly almost quit. Truss is an Instagram Thatcher tribute with nothing to offer. Gove is off his tits. Raab loses his seat at the election and doesn't show any signs of brain activity. Tugenwho?
I know that high thinking moral giants like HY have insisted the party would only vote for a Brexiteer, but there aren't any. And the party is going to left so reeling by Borisgate over the next few months that electing another high risk wazzock won't look sensible.
Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Your time has come.
How on earth does Jeremy Hunt get past the UKIP membership the Tories now have?
Simple - Remain is no longer an option.
Not quite that. I think the issue was that he didn’t have a strategy for getting us out of the EU negotiating bind. Flawed as Johnson’s strategy might have been (I’m not commenting) we are now out of the EU.
I think that lack of strategy made him look like he wasn't committed to delivering on the referendum result, and that doomed him.
But my point is simply that the last Tory leadership election was fought in circumstances when Remain was still an option, and the next one won't be. My feeling from listening to what actual Tory members are actually saying - not what their opponents think they believe - is that the pre-referendum position the candidates took will be at most a minor factor next time. And that in turn means that Hunt can't be automatically ruled out - there's not much liquidity but he's backable on Smarkets at 8 (lay 8.6) and that feels about right.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
Instead they were led by a present Putin crony for half that time.
Corbyn is a prat who overly distrusts the West shocker. Lovely bit of whataboutery, just remember to switch to Blair was a liar or Clegg and tuition fees for the next episode.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
But it is better for society and the individual in many ways - it makes less intensive use of resources, takes up less space on the road, is better for people's health. Of course it can be less convenient, which is why I often drive too. I am not in favour of driving people off the roads (although I would like to see road charging to pay for road infrastructure) but I do think it is good to give people more options including by spending public money and making better planning decisions.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
You just sooo perfectly exhibit the NIMBY mindset. The congestion and fuel economy arguments for well ordered public transport vs private cars are just knockdown winners, but you don't want a lot of nasty new houses spoiling the view, sorry, a lot of nasty peasants in your personal travel space, so there.
Morning all! "He's toast" seems to be the narrative, with even the remaining amoral Tories willing to back lies and criminality now doing so on the back foot. The utter collapse of the "lets front it out" strategy yesterday leaves only defensive plays and there are so few of those left.
They now face a mullering in the locals. Followed swiftly by the avalanche of PCNs (and worse?) from the Met, followed swiftly by the unredacted Grey report, followed swiftly by the Privilege Committee sitting to look through an absolute mountain of damning evidence.
He only got to carry on by blustering it out with the party backing him. That ended yesterday.
So, who replaces him. Sunak has been torpedoed below the water line and supposedly almost quit. Truss is an Instagram Thatcher tribute with nothing to offer. Gove is off his tits. Raab loses his seat at the election and doesn't show any signs of brain activity. Tugenwho?
I know that high thinking moral giants like HY have insisted the party would only vote for a Brexiteer, but there aren't any. And the party is going to left so reeling by Borisgate over the next few months that electing another high risk wazzock won't look sensible.
Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Your time has come.
How on earth does Jeremy Hunt get past the UKIP membership the Tories now have?
Simple - Remain is no longer an option.
Not quite that. I think the issue was that he didn’t have a strategy for getting us out of the EU negotiating bind. Flawed as Johnson’s strategy might have been (I’m not commenting) we are now out of the EU.
I think that lack of strategy made him look like he wasn't committed to delivering on the referendum result, and that doomed him.
But my point is simply that the last Tory leadership election was fought in circumstances when Remain was still an option, and the next one won't be. My feeling from listening to what actual Tory members are actually saying - not what their opponents think they believe - is that the pre-referendum position the candidates took will be at most a minor factor next time. And that in turn means that Hunt can't be automatically ruled out - there's not much liquidity but he's backable on Smarkets at 8 (lay 8.6) and that feels about right.
Indeed, ironically the only present or former Tory on this website who seems to rule out MPs from being next leader based on their having been Remainers is HYUFD, who himself voted Remain and will be 100% loyal to the next leader whoever it is and whatever platform they have.
I can't think of a single person on this site who voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 that would be against a Remain-voting MP being next Tory leader. That should be indicative of the mood of many Tory members.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
You just sooo perfectly exhibit the NIMBY mindset. The congestion and fuel economy arguments for well ordered public transport vs private cars are just knockdown winners, but you don't want a lot of nasty new houses spoiling the view, sorry, a lot of nasty peasants in your personal travel space, so there.
Wrong, I entirely 100% support new houses being built and they can and should be built with accompanying investment in roads to go with the investment in education, healthcare and other amenities.
People need transport. Investment in public transport is not a knockdown winner over investment in roads.
Morning all! "He's toast" seems to be the narrative, with even the remaining amoral Tories willing to back lies and criminality now doing so on the back foot. The utter collapse of the "lets front it out" strategy yesterday leaves only defensive plays and there are so few of those left.
They now face a mullering in the locals. Followed swiftly by the avalanche of PCNs (and worse?) from the Met, followed swiftly by the unredacted Grey report, followed swiftly by the Privilege Committee sitting to look through an absolute mountain of damning evidence.
He only got to carry on by blustering it out with the party backing him. That ended yesterday.
So, who replaces him. Sunak has been torpedoed below the water line and supposedly almost quit. Truss is an Instagram Thatcher tribute with nothing to offer. Gove is off his tits. Raab loses his seat at the election and doesn't show any signs of brain activity. Tugenwho?
I know that high thinking moral giants like HY have insisted the party would only vote for a Brexiteer, but there aren't any. And the party is going to left so reeling by Borisgate over the next few months that electing another high risk wazzock won't look sensible.
Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Your time has come.
How on earth does Jeremy Hunt get past the UKIP membership the Tories now have?
Simple - Remain is no longer an option.
Not quite that. I think the issue was that he didn’t have a strategy for getting us out of the EU negotiating bind. Flawed as Johnson’s strategy might have been (I’m not commenting) we are now out of the EU.
I think that lack of strategy made him look like he wasn't committed to delivering on the referendum result, and that doomed him.
But my point is simply that the last Tory leadership election was fought in circumstances when Remain was still an option, and the next one won't be. My feeling from listening to what actual Tory members are actually saying - not what their opponents think they believe - is that the pre-referendum position the candidates took will be at most a minor factor next time. And that in turn means that Hunt can't be automatically ruled out - there's not much liquidity but he's backable on Smarkets at 8 (lay 8.6) and that feels about right.
Indeed, ironically the only present or former Tory on this website who seems to rule out MPs from being next leader based on their having been Remainers is HYUFD, who himself voted Remain and will be 100% loyal to the next leader whoever it is and whatever platform they have.
I can't think of a single person on this site who voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 that would be against a Remain-voting MP being next Tory leader. That should be indicative of the mood of many Tory members.
The leadership candidates themselves seem to think it's something of a big deal: think of Remainer Hunt's 'EUSSR' babblings to the Tory conference once he'd seen which way the wind was blowing.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
You just sooo perfectly exhibit the NIMBY mindset. The congestion and fuel economy arguments for well ordered public transport vs private cars are just knockdown winners, but you don't want a lot of nasty new houses spoiling the view, sorry, a lot of nasty peasants in your personal travel space, so there.
Wrong, I entirely 100% support new houses being built and they can and should be built with accompanying investment in roads to go with the investment in education, healthcare and other amenities.
People need transport. Investment in public transport is not a knockdown winner over investment in roads.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I much prefer to use public transport. I get to knit, or read, instead of having to concentrate on driving.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
And the market doesn't lie. Pre-car (Victorian/Edwardian) suburbia, the sort of places where you might be lucky to park one car, but the things you want (including public transport into town) are within walking distance, are incredibly desirable, as shown by the house prices.
Johnson, much like Thatcher with the Falklands, has had a "good war" so far and used it to divert from a lousy domestic situation. But Johnson, unlike Thatcher, will not be emerging from his foreign war with a poll lead, whether or not it ends now or goes on for many months yet.
It's not "our" war
BoZo has tried to use it as a shield for his many and obvious faults, but it's not working.
My point (in response to a comment you deleted) was that the news coverage could have been a lot more unfavourable to Johnson. Until very recently, Ukraine dominated the news coverage just as much as the Falklands did. And had an emboldened Putin rolled over Ukraine, the continuing threat to our interests (and even existence) would have been far greater by comparison, so that coverage was justified.
But yes, I agree that the war hasn't bailed out Johnson, with the Tories remaining consistently behind in the polls. It could have, had a former Labour leader still been in charge of Labour's response, heaven forbid.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
But it is better for society and the individual in many ways - it makes less intensive use of resources, takes up less space on the road, is better for people's health. Of course it can be less convenient, which is why I often drive too. I am not in favour of driving people off the roads (although I would like to see road charging to pay for road infrastructure) but I do think it is good to give people more options including by spending public money and making better planning decisions.
LOL at the idea of road charges or the idea that public transport is a less intensive use of resources.
I would be quite happy to see all road charges (fuel duty etc) being invested in the road network, but I think you will find that the Treasury makes a racket out of drivers and is worried about how to replace fuel duty taxes, while public transport is heavily invested in and cost the taxpayer a fortune and still we get annual whinges from rail commuters as to how expensive their heavily subsidised fairs are.
Ideally road commuters should fully fund roads, while rail commuters should fully fund rails, without the Treasury using either as a golden goose or paying to subsidise them but I think you'd find if that happened that road prices would rapidly come down while rail prices would rapidly shoot up.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
You just sooo perfectly exhibit the NIMBY mindset. The congestion and fuel economy arguments for well ordered public transport vs private cars are just knockdown winners, but you don't want a lot of nasty new houses spoiling the view, sorry, a lot of nasty peasants in your personal travel space, so there.
Wrong, I entirely 100% support new houses being built and they can and should be built with accompanying investment in roads to go with the investment in education, healthcare and other amenities.
People need transport. Investment in public transport is not a knockdown winner over investment in roads.
Johnson, much like Thatcher with the Falklands, has had a "good war" so far and used it to divert from a lousy domestic situation. But Johnson, unlike Thatcher, will not be emerging from his foreign war with a poll lead, whether or not it ends now or goes on for many months yet.
It's not "our" war
BoZo has tried to use it as a shield for his many and obvious faults, but it's not working.
My point (in response to a comment you deleted) was that the news coverage could have been a lot more unfavourable to Johnson. Until very recently, Ukraine dominated the news coverage just as much as the Falklands did. And had an emboldened Putin rolled over Ukraine, the continuing threat to our interests (and even existence) would have been far greater by comparison, so that coverage was justified.
But yes, I agree that the war hasn't bailed out Johnson, with the Tories remaining consistently behind in the polls. It could have, had a former Labour leader still been in charge of Labour's response, heaven forbid.
And we shouldn't discount that the Ukraine war may well have had a +ve impact on Tory polling. I imagine it to be possible that there are a measurable number of wavering voters who are bought in to the "not at this time" line.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I much prefer to use public transport. I get to knit, or read, instead of having to concentrate on driving.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
And the market doesn't lie. Pre-car (Victorian/Edwardian) suburbia, the sort of places where you might be lucky to park one car, but the things you want (including public transport into town) are within walking distance, are incredibly desirable, as shown by the house prices.
Because of their very limited supply.
If 10% of people want something but there's only enough supply for 5% then supply exceeds demand and the price goes up, even if most people don't want it.
The market doesn't lie, the overwhelming majority of the British public choose to drive.
German Chancellor Scholz says EU gas embargo would not end the war in Ukraine and justifies the country's reluctance to supply heavy weapons with the fear of a nuclear escalation
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I'm hardly an anti-car zealot, I've got a car that I drive several times every week, and I enjoy driving. I just recognise that it's not always the best option, either for me or the rest of society, and am happy to have alternative options and would like to see those options available more widely. If that makes me a zealot in your book then I think you may have a rather skewed perspective.
"Not always the best option" - but in towns it typically is the best option.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
But it is better for society and the individual in many ways - it makes less intensive use of resources, takes up less space on the road, is better for people's health. Of course it can be less convenient, which is why I often drive too. I am not in favour of driving people off the roads (although I would like to see road charging to pay for road infrastructure) but I do think it is good to give people more options including by spending public money and making better planning decisions.
There's already a form of road charging which could be used to fund road infrastructure...
Surprised both main parties lose a point and conservative still at the 34% mark
I would have expected a wider gap
There have been no new allegations, people already know whats happened, Labour may be pushing Partygate to far. The amount of time and money that is being wasted on it may be grating people, especially with the annoucement of yet another enquiry yesterday.
What date will the Nuremberg type trials of Partygate take place?
You make a valid point. Voters are now so exasperated with Johnson's ducking and diving that they're turning their attention to mere associates. The poison is now spreading to the party as some of the wiser heads in it can see. If this continues much longer they're going to need more than just a replacement for Johnson. They're going to need a complete rebrand.
Actually since so many people are liking each other's smug posts about how great public transport is, how much more efficient it is and how much its a knockdown winner you've convinced me.
Since public transport is so much more efficient a use of resources, lets have public transport as fully taxed as fuel and driving is. Since its so efficient, it will easily be able to handle those taxes. Lets also abolish all subsidies to rails, I don't get any subsidies for driving, since its so efficient it won't need subsidies. Lets get taxes on drivers spent on roads and not public transport, since public transport is so efficient it won't need subsidising by drivers anymore.
Instead lets have everyone choose for themselves. Road users can pay for roads, with all their expenditure going just on roads - and public transport users can pay for public transport, with all their expenditure going just on public transport (including roads for buses). The taxpayer shouldn't net make a profit or subsidy out of either.
Everybody gets to choose what they want and public transport as a knockout winner won't need subsidies since it is so efficient. Everybody happy with that?
Actually since so many people are liking each other's smug posts about how great public transport is, how much more efficient it is and how much its a knockdown winner you've convinced me.
Since public transport is so much more efficient a use of resources, lets have public transport as fully taxed as fuel and driving is. Since its so efficient, it will easily be able to handle those taxes. Lets also abolish all subsidies to rails, I don't get any subsidies for driving, since its so efficient it won't need subsidies. Lets get taxes on drivers spent on roads and not public transport, since public transport is so efficient it won't need subsidising by drivers anymore.
Instead lets have everyone choose for themselves. Road users can pay for roads, with all their expenditure going just on roads - and public transport users can pay for public transport, with all their expenditure going just on public transport (including roads for buses). The taxpayer shouldn't net make a profit or subsidy out of either.
Everybody gets to choose what they want and public transport as a knockout winner won't need subsidies since it is so efficient. Everybody happy with that?
Does using roads for free paid for out of general taxation not count as a subsidy?
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
"The UK’s second largest trade union, Unite, is threatening to withhold financial support from the Labour Party unless Sir Keir Starmer obeys the wishes of the union’s new general secretary and intervenes in an obscure dispute in Coventry between refuse collectors and the local council."
Actually since so many people are liking each other's smug posts about how great public transport is, how much more efficient it is and how much its a knockdown winner you've convinced me.
Since public transport is so much more efficient a use of resources, lets have public transport as fully taxed as fuel and driving is. Since its so efficient, it will easily be able to handle those taxes. Lets also abolish all subsidies to rails, I don't get any subsidies for driving, since its so efficient it won't need subsidies. Lets get taxes on drivers spent on roads and not public transport, since public transport is so efficient it won't need subsidising by drivers anymore.
Instead lets have everyone choose for themselves. Road users can pay for roads, with all their expenditure going just on roads - and public transport users can pay for public transport, with all their expenditure going just on public transport (including roads for buses). The taxpayer shouldn't net make a profit or subsidy out of either.
Everybody gets to choose what they want and public transport as a knockout winner won't need subsidies since it is so efficient. Everybody happy with that?
Does using roads for free paid for out of general taxation not count as a subsidy?
Last I checked VED and fuel duty much more than covers road expenditure, so no, absolutely not.
The Exchequer makes tens of billions of profit annually from drivers and is worried about how to replace that money, it doesn't subsidise driving. If train passengers were facing a comparable duty instead of subsidies then perhaps we might see just how "efficient" public transport really is?
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I much prefer to use public transport. I get to knit, or read, instead of having to concentrate on driving.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
And the market doesn't lie. Pre-car (Victorian/Edwardian) suburbia, the sort of places where you might be lucky to park one car, but the things you want (including public transport into town) are within walking distance, are incredibly desirable, as shown by the house prices.
Because of their very limited supply.
If 10% of people want something but there's only enough supply for 5% then supply exceeds demand and the price goes up, even if most people don't want it.
The market doesn't lie, the overwhelming majority of the British public choose to drive.
Thinking about my own experience, I'm not sure what could be done to make me drive less. Pretty much everywhere I go, either I already walk or public transport wouldn't make any sense (for example, shopping too heavy to carry needs a car, I'm not lugging it on a bus).
About the only thing that I can think of, the occasional times I need to go to the office in London, the train times mean that I would have to get a train at around 5:30am to be in for 9am - the next one at around 6:30am gets me in at 9:15 on paper. And if I'm getting up at 5am I'd rather drive, knowing I can leave at 5:30am and be in on time even if traffic is bad (and if traffic isn't bad I'll either be early or can have a relaxing breakfast stop at a services). Plus, of course, if I go by train I only get the train fare paid in expenses, whereas if I drive I get HMRC mileage - which even with fuel costs as they are now more than covers the cost of the fuel.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I much prefer to use public transport. I get to knit, or read, instead of having to concentrate on driving.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
And the market doesn't lie. Pre-car (Victorian/Edwardian) suburbia, the sort of places where you might be lucky to park one car, but the things you want (including public transport into town) are within walking distance, are incredibly desirable, as shown by the house prices.
Because of their very limited supply.
If 10% of people want something but there's only enough supply for 5% then supply exceeds demand and the price goes up, even if most people don't want it.
The market doesn't lie, the overwhelming majority of the British public choose to drive.
But we don't know that, because the majority of the British public don't have a realistic choice in the matter.
We build very high density city flats (which aren't suitable for everyone), low density outer suburbs (where yes, people pretty much have to drive), and Poundbury. Which is delightful and popular, but scarce. In a sane world, we would be looking at what sells at a premium and making more of that. Which is probably the styling and proportions of Georgian town squares built to modern standards and a short walk from a tram stop on a route into a city centre.
We don't know if lots of people drive because they love driving, or because most houses are arranged in ways that make it difficult not to. Once you have enough space allocated to roads and parking to make mass car use viable, it's not easy to stop it being manadatory.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
"The UK’s second largest trade union, Unite, is threatening to withhold financial support from the Labour Party unless Sir Keir Starmer obeys the wishes of the union’s new general secretary and intervenes in an obscure dispute in Coventry between refuse collectors and the local council."
At least the Tories didn't get bought.
Err, that story is about Starmer refusing to follow what Unite want....unless you have an update?
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I much prefer to use public transport. I get to knit, or read, instead of having to concentrate on driving.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
And the market doesn't lie. Pre-car (Victorian/Edwardian) suburbia, the sort of places where you might be lucky to park one car, but the things you want (including public transport into town) are within walking distance, are incredibly desirable, as shown by the house prices.
Because of their very limited supply.
If 10% of people want something but there's only enough supply for 5% then supply exceeds demand and the price goes up, even if most people don't want it.
The market doesn't lie, the overwhelming majority of the British public choose to drive.
Under the current set up they do. That is irrelevant to discussions of what the set up should be.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
It's more a case of never interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake. That mistake in the form of Johnson needs to continue until 2024.
Remember that the policy offer that Labour fought on in 2017 was revealed only in the midst of a snap general election campaign, but still served its purpose by and large.
That last point its true, but possibly only because the snap general election was called so early - we're already deeper into this parliament than the 2015 parliament lasted. But even then there was the outline known of what Corbyn's vision was and therefore what sorts of policies he was likely to have. By comparison, SKS is a blank sheet of paper.
I'm concerned by the reference to the opponent as the "enemy", too.
My take on 2017 is somewhat different to yours. I think that Labour's offer did have some effect, and did surprise people. It was a break from the past but still surprisingly moderate in the form of a fairly traditional costed 1970s style social-democratic manifesto which much of the party could unite around. As such, it helped mitigate fears of and distract from Corbyn. (The far left, incidentally, took all the wrong lessons from that and decided that more extreme policies would be even more popular, leading to the basket case of the extremist 2019 manifesto.)
Re "the enemy", I was quoting Napoleon. Not that I regard Johnson as anything but despicable.
Actually since so many people are liking each other's smug posts about how great public transport is, how much more efficient it is and how much its a knockdown winner you've convinced me.
Since public transport is so much more efficient a use of resources, lets have public transport as fully taxed as fuel and driving is. Since its so efficient, it will easily be able to handle those taxes. Lets also abolish all subsidies to rails, I don't get any subsidies for driving, since its so efficient it won't need subsidies. Lets get taxes on drivers spent on roads and not public transport, since public transport is so efficient it won't need subsidising by drivers anymore.
Instead lets have everyone choose for themselves. Road users can pay for roads, with all their expenditure going just on roads - and public transport users can pay for public transport, with all their expenditure going just on public transport (including roads for buses). The taxpayer shouldn't net make a profit or subsidy out of either.
Everybody gets to choose what they want and public transport as a knockout winner won't need subsidies since it is so efficient. Everybody happy with that?
Does using roads for free paid for out of general taxation not count as a subsidy?
Last I checked VED and fuel duty much more than covers road expenditure, so no, absolutely not.
The Exchequer makes tens of billions of profit annually from drivers and is worried about how to replace that money, it doesn't subsidise driving. If train passengers were facing a comparable duty instead of subsidies then perhaps we might see just how "efficient" public transport really is?
Fuel duty is charged to rail operators as well. In fact, that probably means the government make a net profit out of the railways too...
Actually since so many people are liking each other's smug posts about how great public transport is, how much more efficient it is and how much its a knockdown winner you've convinced me.
Since public transport is so much more efficient a use of resources, lets have public transport as fully taxed as fuel and driving is. Since its so efficient, it will easily be able to handle those taxes. Lets also abolish all subsidies to rails, I don't get any subsidies for driving, since its so efficient it won't need subsidies. Lets get taxes on drivers spent on roads and not public transport, since public transport is so efficient it won't need subsidising by drivers anymore.
Instead lets have everyone choose for themselves. Road users can pay for roads, with all their expenditure going just on roads - and public transport users can pay for public transport, with all their expenditure going just on public transport (including roads for buses). The taxpayer shouldn't net make a profit or subsidy out of either.
Everybody gets to choose what they want and public transport as a knockout winner won't need subsidies since it is so efficient. Everybody happy with that?
I pay about three grand a year to commute to work by rail (three days a week). Out of interest, how much extra would I have to pay if the state wasn't subsidizing my journey to the extent it is?
Actually since so many people are liking each other's smug posts about how great public transport is, how much more efficient it is and how much its a knockdown winner you've convinced me.
Since public transport is so much more efficient a use of resources, lets have public transport as fully taxed as fuel and driving is. Since its so efficient, it will easily be able to handle those taxes. Lets also abolish all subsidies to rails, I don't get any subsidies for driving, since its so efficient it won't need subsidies. Lets get taxes on drivers spent on roads and not public transport, since public transport is so efficient it won't need subsidising by drivers anymore.
Instead lets have everyone choose for themselves. Road users can pay for roads, with all their expenditure going just on roads - and public transport users can pay for public transport, with all their expenditure going just on public transport (including roads for buses). The taxpayer shouldn't net make a profit or subsidy out of either.
Everybody gets to choose what they want and public transport as a knockout winner won't need subsidies since it is so efficient. Everybody happy with that?
I pay about three grand a year to commute to work by rail (three days a week). Out of interest, how much extra would I have to pay if the state wasn't subsidizing my journey to the extent it is?
Good question - and don't forget the taxes too.
Taxes are from memory ~50% of the cost of fuel (and most of the time that's closer to 70-75%) so if your commute wasn't subsidised and was as heavily taxed as fuel is then I would imagine it could be closer to six grand a year?
Just a guess, others might be able to do the numbers better.
Roads are a very efficient use of resources. Public transport is a very efficient use of space, but a very inefficient use of resources.
I’ve been out exploring more of Barcelona and looking for coffee under the rising sun. It’s a beautiful city, and far more pleasant to walk around when the streets are practically empty. It’s insanely busy here! I’ve managed to avoid a pickpocketing, possibly by looking very poor - I’ve been brandishing my ancient iPhone 6 (well using it to find where I am) which I think is a reliable, modern and international indicator for not having much dosh!
At the last coffee place I managed to join in a conversation between the two Catalan ladies working there and, I think, a Scandinavian chap drinking an espresso at the bar (he was speaking Spanish with an accent). They seemed to be discussing the similarities between Catalan and French - one lady was saying café con leche and café au lait, then gracias and merci, both of which French terms I’ve heard in Catalan. I piped up with “Si us plau and s’il vous plait”. Both ladies immediately pointed at me nodding and spoke very quickly to me in Catalan.
I had to then reveal my Eng-norance, but managed to explain in my shaky French that I’d noticed many similarities between French and Catalan. I added for my final flourish that I believe French had taken the words from Catalan (a ‘fact’ given to me by my translator friend I spent the afternoon drinking with at the bus station the other day). This won a “Brava!” From a very old Catalan gent sitting in the café, who then seemed to go into an old man rant at nobody in particular.
I brought my coffee out here to just watch people go by for a bit..
Les Ramblas...don't you just long to be back in the EU? Those multi lingual conversations was one of the things I loved...
But Roger, they’re still happening now! And nobody mentioned Brexit (unless that was what the old dude was ranting about)
And I could be having as many monolingual conversations as I like here, with the massive number of Americans I’ve heard. On almost every street I’ve walked down I’ve noticed their (usually loudly voiced) accents.
Go into one of the cafes off Les Ramblas and ask for a bar job as a non EU citizen or try to stay there for more than three months. There used to be as much chance of finding british students over there learning the language in a bar as finding an Italian. Now they need a permit. Brexit is shit.
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
Can I have 42% of all your money? Don't worry - you get to keep 58% of it and 58 is more than 42.
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
What's over-exaggerated as opposed to just exaggerated?
Tbf I suspect 50 years is exaggerated; that's far too soon for there to be any benefits from Brexshite.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
"The UK’s second largest trade union, Unite, is threatening to withhold financial support from the Labour Party unless Sir Keir Starmer obeys the wishes of the union’s new general secretary and intervenes in an obscure dispute in Coventry between refuse collectors and the local council."
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
Can I have 42% of all your money? Don't worry - you get to keep 58% of it and 58 is more than 42.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
"The UK’s second largest trade union, Unite, is threatening to withhold financial support from the Labour Party unless Sir Keir Starmer obeys the wishes of the union’s new general secretary and intervenes in an obscure dispute in Coventry between refuse collectors and the local council."
At least the Tories didn't get bought.
One can only assume you are being ironic?
Who bought the Tories, and what did they get for their money?
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
Can I have 42% of all your money? Don't worry - you get to keep 58% of it and 58 is more than 42.
Only 42% would be a tax cut for many people, especially when you factor in both forms of National Insurance and/or "Student Loans"
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
"duckspeak." Your batterie de débat consists entirely of internet buzzwords, does it not? Heavy lifting. Feeding the troll. Duckspeak.
If you hear that someone's blood cell count has fallen by 42% do you see that and read 58% of the cells are still there, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a school's pupils fail to meet basic literacy standards do you see that and read 58% of the pupils meet the standard, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a hospital's patients die of avoidable infections...
I’ve been out exploring more of Barcelona and looking for coffee under the rising sun. It’s a beautiful city, and far more pleasant to walk around when the streets are practically empty. It’s insanely busy here! I’ve managed to avoid a pickpocketing, possibly by looking very poor - I’ve been brandishing my ancient iPhone 6 (well using it to find where I am) which I think is a reliable, modern and international indicator for not having much dosh!
At the last coffee place I managed to join in a conversation between the two Catalan ladies working there and, I think, a Scandinavian chap drinking an espresso at the bar (he was speaking Spanish with an accent). They seemed to be discussing the similarities between Catalan and French - one lady was saying café con leche and café au lait, then gracias and merci, both of which French terms I’ve heard in Catalan. I piped up with “Si us plau and s’il vous plait”. Both ladies immediately pointed at me nodding and spoke very quickly to me in Catalan.
I had to then reveal my Eng-norance, but managed to explain in my shaky French that I’d noticed many similarities between French and Catalan. I added for my final flourish that I believe French had taken the words from Catalan (a ‘fact’ given to me by my translator friend I spent the afternoon drinking with at the bus station the other day). This won a “Brava!” From a very old Catalan gent sitting in the café, who then seemed to go into an old man rant at nobody in particular.
I brought my coffee out here to just watch people go by for a bit..
Les Ramblas...don't you just long to be back in the EU? Those multi lingual conversations was one of the things I loved...
But Roger, they’re still happening now! And nobody mentioned Brexit (unless that was what the old dude was ranting about)
And I could be having as many monolingual conversations as I like here, with the massive number of Americans I’ve heard. On almost every street I’ve walked down I’ve noticed their (usually loudly voiced) accents.
Go into one of the cafes off Les Ramblas and ask for a bar job as a non EU citizen or try to stay there for more than three months. There used to be as much chance of finding british students over there learning the language in a bar as finding an Italian. Now they need a permit. Brexit is shit.
My granddaughter is on a Japanese and Italian culture and language course at Leeds University and goes to Kyoto University in August then the year after spends a year in Tuscany
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
You have missed off the more immediate requirement - beating Cymru in Cardiff in the play off final......
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
"duckspeak." Your batterie de débat consists entirely of internet buzzwords, does it not? Heavy lifting. Feeding the troll. Duckspeak.
If you hear that someone's blood cell count has fallen by 42% do you see that and read 58% of the cells are still there, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a school's pupils fail to meet basic literacy standards do you see that and read 58% of the pupils meet the standard, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a hospital's patients die of avoidable infections...
"Duckspeak" is an Orwell neologism, and perfectly describes Scott's tweet pasting.
The differences between your attempted analogies and the case originally quoted include: (a) 42% of businesses is noth the same as 42% of trade; and (b) nothing is said about what proportion of the 58% of businesses are exporting more.
I’ve been out exploring more of Barcelona and looking for coffee under the rising sun. It’s a beautiful city, and far more pleasant to walk around when the streets are practically empty. It’s insanely busy here! I’ve managed to avoid a pickpocketing, possibly by looking very poor - I’ve been brandishing my ancient iPhone 6 (well using it to find where I am) which I think is a reliable, modern and international indicator for not having much dosh!
At the last coffee place I managed to join in a conversation between the two Catalan ladies working there and, I think, a Scandinavian chap drinking an espresso at the bar (he was speaking Spanish with an accent). They seemed to be discussing the similarities between Catalan and French - one lady was saying café con leche and café au lait, then gracias and merci, both of which French terms I’ve heard in Catalan. I piped up with “Si us plau and s’il vous plait”. Both ladies immediately pointed at me nodding and spoke very quickly to me in Catalan.
I had to then reveal my Eng-norance, but managed to explain in my shaky French that I’d noticed many similarities between French and Catalan. I added for my final flourish that I believe French had taken the words from Catalan (a ‘fact’ given to me by my translator friend I spent the afternoon drinking with at the bus station the other day). This won a “Brava!” From a very old Catalan gent sitting in the café, who then seemed to go into an old man rant at nobody in particular.
I brought my coffee out here to just watch people go by for a bit..
Les Ramblas...don't you just long to be back in the EU? Those multi lingual conversations was one of the things I loved...
But Roger, they’re still happening now! And nobody mentioned Brexit (unless that was what the old dude was ranting about)
And I could be having as many monolingual conversations as I like here, with the massive number of Americans I’ve heard. On almost every street I’ve walked down I’ve noticed their (usually loudly voiced) accents.
Go into one of the cafes off Les Ramblas and ask for a bar job as a non EU citizen or try to stay there for more than three months. There used to be as much chance of finding british students over there learning the language in a bar as finding an Italian. Now they need a permit. Brexit is shit.
My granddaughter is on a Japanese and Italian culture and language course at Leeds University and goes to Kyoto University in August then the year after spends a year in Tuscany
BoZo says he wants a trade deal done by October. The Indians said no
Talking of lies - the Indians did not say no
You're unfair to Scott. They did. They can see a desperate Brexiter coming a kilometre off. Hence the holdout.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
"duckspeak." Your batterie de débat consists entirely of internet buzzwords, does it not? Heavy lifting. Feeding the troll. Duckspeak.
If you hear that someone's blood cell count has fallen by 42% do you see that and read 58% of the cells are still there, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a school's pupils fail to meet basic literacy standards do you see that and read 58% of the pupils meet the standard, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a hospital's patients die of avoidable infections...
"Duckspeak" is an Orwell neologism, and perfectly describes Scott's tweet pasting.
The differences between your attempted analogies and the case originally quoted include: (a) 42% of businesses is noth the same as 42% of trade; and (b) nothing is said about what proportion of the 58% of businesses are exporting more.
This is like Barty Bobs on a half dose of Red Bull.
I’ve been out exploring more of Barcelona and looking for coffee under the rising sun. It’s a beautiful city, and far more pleasant to walk around when the streets are practically empty. It’s insanely busy here! I’ve managed to avoid a pickpocketing, possibly by looking very poor - I’ve been brandishing my ancient iPhone 6 (well using it to find where I am) which I think is a reliable, modern and international indicator for not having much dosh!
At the last coffee place I managed to join in a conversation between the two Catalan ladies working there and, I think, a Scandinavian chap drinking an espresso at the bar (he was speaking Spanish with an accent). They seemed to be discussing the similarities between Catalan and French - one lady was saying café con leche and café au lait, then gracias and merci, both of which French terms I’ve heard in Catalan. I piped up with “Si us plau and s’il vous plait”. Both ladies immediately pointed at me nodding and spoke very quickly to me in Catalan.
I had to then reveal my Eng-norance, but managed to explain in my shaky French that I’d noticed many similarities between French and Catalan. I added for my final flourish that I believe French had taken the words from Catalan (a ‘fact’ given to me by my translator friend I spent the afternoon drinking with at the bus station the other day). This won a “Brava!” From a very old Catalan gent sitting in the café, who then seemed to go into an old man rant at nobody in particular.
I brought my coffee out here to just watch people go by for a bit..
Les Ramblas...don't you just long to be back in the EU? Those multi lingual conversations was one of the things I loved...
But Roger, they’re still happening now! And nobody mentioned Brexit (unless that was what the old dude was ranting about)
And I could be having as many monolingual conversations as I like here, with the massive number of Americans I’ve heard. On almost every street I’ve walked down I’ve noticed their (usually loudly voiced) accents.
Go into one of the cafes off Les Ramblas and ask for a bar job as a non EU citizen or try to stay there for more than three months. There used to be as much chance of finding british students over there learning the language in a bar as finding an Italian. Now they need a permit. Brexit is shit.
My granddaughter is on a Japanese and Italian culture and language course at Leeds University and goes to Kyoto University in August then the year after spends a year in Tuscany
Stop ruining people's agendas with facts
It is a fact and we are very proud that she has learnt Japanese since starting at Leeds in September sufficient to go to one of Kyoto's universities in August
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
Hmm, you haven't allowed for "about the same".
I noticed that "about the same" wasn't mentioned, as it happens, and thought the fact was significant. I can rely on the IOD and Scott to select the most anti-Brexit statistic.
We'll have to wait fifty years to see any benefits from Brexit. Leon was most adamant about that the other day.
I think that's overexaggerated, but it is Leon...
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
Hmm, you haven't allowed for "about the same".
I noticed that "about the same" wasn't mentioned, as it happens, and thought the fact was significant. I can rely on the IOD and Scott to select the most anti-Brexit statistic.
BoZo says he wants a trade deal done by October. The Indians said no
Talking of lies - the Indians did not say no
You're unfair to Scott. They did. They can see a desperate Brexiter coming a kilometre off. Hence the holdout.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
BoZo says he wants a trade deal done by October. The Indians said no
Talking of lies - the Indians did not say no
You're unfair to Scott. They did. They can see a desperate Brexiter coming a kilometre off. Hence the holdout.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
BoZo says he wants a trade deal done by October. The Indians said no
Talking of lies - the Indians did not say no
You're unfair to Scott. They did. They can see a desperate Brexiter coming a kilometre off. Hence the holdout.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
BoZo says he wants a trade deal done by October. The Indians said no
Talking of lies - the Indians did not say no
You're unfair to Scott. They did. They can see a desperate Brexiter coming a kilometre off. Hence the holdout.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 1h The Russian Army just declared that one of their goals in the new phase of the war is to take all of Ukraine’s coastal regions & create a land bridge to Transnistria (de jure part of Moldova).
They also claim that Russian-speakers are persecuted in Transnistria.
BoZo says he wants a trade deal done by October. The Indians said no
Talking of lies - the Indians did not say no
You're unfair to Scott. They did. They can see a desperate Brexiter coming a kilometre off. Hence the holdout.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
Scott could have quoted as you have done but he wanted to paint it as a failure as he cannot help himself
You wouldn't, would you? This was a joint press release all about agreement. The fact that Mr M immediately corrected Mr J is the key point. Mr J is in a panic. Mr M can screw what he likes out of Mr J.
On the subject of money, those thinking Labour is on the up and up need to remember - it is broke, perhaps very broke indeed. It is likely to get heavily outspent in the six months run up to an election, selling a new PM to the voters with a very targeted social media spend.
If only they had been tapping up ex Putin cronies for the last decade, eh?
"The UK’s second largest trade union, Unite, is threatening to withhold financial support from the Labour Party unless Sir Keir Starmer obeys the wishes of the union’s new general secretary and intervenes in an obscure dispute in Coventry between refuse collectors and the local council."
At least the Tories didn't get bought.
One can only assume you are being ironic?
Who bought the Tories, and what did they get for their money?
Super-rich donors (including Russian oligarchs), and they got: multiple tax exemptions including non-dom, ridiculous PPE contracts that fleeced the country, jobs for which they were not qualified, seats in the HoL, direct access to the PM through 'private events', etc., etc., etc...
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
So says an anti-car zealot.
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
I much prefer to use public transport. I get to knit, or read, instead of having to concentrate on driving.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
Yes , if only they had spent a fraction of the money spent on London transport/infrastructure in other areas of the countries we could all say that.
BoZo says he wants a trade deal done by October. The Indians said no
Talking of lies - the Indians did not say no
You're unfair to Scott. They did. They can see a desperate Brexiter coming a kilometre off. Hence the holdout.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
Scott could have quoted as you have done but he wanted to paint it as a failure as he cannot help himself
You wouldn't, would you? This was a joint press release all about agreement. The fact that Mr M immediately corrected Mr J is the key point. Mr J is in a panic. Mr M can screw what he likes out of Mr J.
The Australian deal having sown the seeds of the destruction of British agriculture, I wonder what British industry this one will destroy.
Comments
The CoE hasn't got anything like the same problems. They had their moments on the child abuse thing, but to a much lesser degree.
Did you ever get your security problem resolved? - that your VPN exits to a fixed IP associated with a compromised PC is very, very worrying. I would change your VPN immediately. And probably rebuild my machine from a new hard disc....
Over 80% of Swedish vocabulary is Germanic, but only about one third is directly attributable to German.
It's good to have options - living in London we can take public transport a lot of the time, or walk or cycle easily, or drive when necessary. I do all of these, sometimes all on the same day. There are plenty of other urban or suburban environments where that would be feasible and I think many would welcome it if they had the option.
Obviously those who live in the middle of nowhere have made that choice and will probably not have an option but to use a car. I think they're crazy to have chosen that lifestyle, personally, but that's their choice.
Or Wilson and "Lady Falkender"?
Or - God forbid - if Twitter had discovered about John and Edwina?
But all would pale into insignificance compared to what a modern-day Twitterarmy would do to Fatcha!!!!!
I think you will find that cars are the #1 transport choice in the overwhelming majority of the country precisely because people are happiest having their own transport that they can go from wherever they are, to wherever they want to be in. With their own private space.
Driving on open roads from A to B is a far more pleasant experience than doing so in public transport for many people.
Yes traffic, especially on badly designed roads, may be an issue but so is congestion on public transport - and I'd be far happier sat in traffic in my own vehicle listening to my own music with my own space than stood in a crowded public vehicle crammed next to somebody's sweaty armpit.
For the vast majority of the time I drive, traffic is not a problem. Anti-car zealots seem to think that life is nothing other than traffic jams for drivers, it normally isn't.
Remember that the policy offer that Labour fought on in 2017 was revealed only in the midst of a snap general election campaign, but still served its purpose by and large.
Tory MPs are happy enough with that, lets see what the electorate thinks.
I'm concerned by the reference to the opponent as the "enemy", too.
The mindset that it isn't, is the problem, and is the mindset that explains why too many involved in planning etc in too many places don't invest properly in roads.
Just as you want sufficient investment in the rail lines, in order for rail to work properly, then there equally needs to be sufficient investment in the road network, in order for roads to work properly. Its the exact same principle.
Society is not better off getting people off the road, that attitude stinks. I have absolutely no qualms with public transport as an alternative option if that is what people choose, I am all in favour of people having choices and making their own choices, but public transport should not be considered better or worse for society or the individual than private transport.
If I'm going for a walk I can do a linear walk, instead of having to return to where I parked my car.
It's one of the great things about visiting London, the absolute freedom to go anywhere across a huge city using frequent public transport.
But my point is simply that the last Tory leadership election was fought in circumstances when Remain was still an option, and the next one won't be. My feeling from listening to what actual Tory members are actually saying - not what their opponents think they believe - is that the pre-referendum position the candidates took will be at most a minor factor next time. And that in turn means that Hunt can't be automatically ruled out - there's not much liquidity but he's backable on Smarkets at 8 (lay 8.6) and that feels about right.
Macron - Le Pen : 53% - 47%, ±2,5%
https://www.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2022/20220421.OBS57440/sondage-second-tour-le-debat-entre-macron-et-lepen-n-a-pas-eu-d-impact-resultat-serre-en-perspective.html
I can't think of a single person on this site who voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 that would be against a Remain-voting MP being next Tory leader. That should be indicative of the mood of many Tory members.
People need transport. Investment in public transport is not a knockdown winner over investment in roads.
But yes, I agree that the war hasn't bailed out Johnson, with the Tories remaining consistently behind in the polls. It could have, had a former Labour leader still been in charge of Labour's response, heaven forbid.
I would be quite happy to see all road charges (fuel duty etc) being invested in the road network, but I think you will find that the Treasury makes a racket out of drivers and is worried about how to replace fuel duty taxes, while public transport is heavily invested in and cost the taxpayer a fortune and still we get annual whinges from rail commuters as to how expensive their heavily subsidised fairs are.
Ideally road commuters should fully fund roads, while rail commuters should fully fund rails, without the Treasury using either as a golden goose or paying to subsidise them but I think you'd find if that happened that road prices would rapidly come down while rail prices would rapidly shoot up.
If 10% of people want something but there's only enough supply for 5% then supply exceeds demand and the price goes up, even if most people don't want it.
The market doesn't lie, the overwhelming majority of the British public choose to drive.
Boris Johnson announced that Britain will reopen its embassy in Kyiv
‘The extraordinary fortitude and success of Ukrainian people means I can announce we will next week reopen our embassy’
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1517451351823122432
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/olaf-scholz-und-der-ukraine-krieg-es-darf-keinen-atomkrieg-geben-a-ae2acfbf-8125-4bf5-a273-fbcd0bd8791c
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1517452504707248129
Since public transport is so much more efficient a use of resources, lets have public transport as fully taxed as fuel and driving is. Since its so efficient, it will easily be able to handle those taxes. Lets also abolish all subsidies to rails, I don't get any subsidies for driving, since its so efficient it won't need subsidies. Lets get taxes on drivers spent on roads and not public transport, since public transport is so efficient it won't need subsidising by drivers anymore.
Instead lets have everyone choose for themselves. Road users can pay for roads, with all their expenditure going just on roads - and public transport users can pay for public transport, with all their expenditure going just on public transport (including roads for buses). The taxpayer shouldn't net make a profit or subsidy out of either.
Everybody gets to choose what they want and public transport as a knockout winner won't need subsidies since it is so efficient. Everybody happy with that?
But he got to dress up again
At least the Tories didn't get bought.
The Exchequer makes tens of billions of profit annually from drivers and is worried about how to replace that money, it doesn't subsidise driving. If train passengers were facing a comparable duty instead of subsidies then perhaps we might see just how "efficient" public transport really is?
About the only thing that I can think of, the occasional times I need to go to the office in London, the train times mean that I would have to get a train at around 5:30am to be in for 9am - the next one at around 6:30am gets me in at 9:15 on paper. And if I'm getting up at 5am I'd rather drive, knowing I can leave at 5:30am and be in on time even if traffic is bad (and if traffic isn't bad I'll either be early or can have a relaxing breakfast stop at a services). Plus, of course, if I go by train I only get the train fare paid in expenses, whereas if I drive I get HMRC mileage - which even with fuel costs as they are now more than covers the cost of the fuel.
This Brexit voter tells James O'Brien he feels 'conned' by the government, after expecting mass re-industrialisation after leaving the EU.
@mrjamesob https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1517451415350026241/video/1
We build very high density city flats (which aren't suitable for everyone), low density outer suburbs (where yes, people pretty much have to drive), and Poundbury. Which is delightful and popular, but scarce. In a sane world, we would be looking at what sells at a premium and making more of that. Which is probably the styling and proportions of Georgian town squares built to modern standards and a short walk from a tram stop on a route into a city centre.
We don't know if lots of people drive because they love driving, or because most houses are arranged in ways that make it difficult not to. Once you have enough space allocated to roads and parking to make mass car use viable, it's not easy to stop it being manadatory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60336606
Re "the enemy", I was quoting Napoleon. Not that I regard Johnson as anything but despicable.
"42% of businesses that trade internationally are exporting less to the EU than the last five years."
"UK businesses have lost EU clients & revenue. EU firms have pulled out of UK due to increased trade frictions."
https://www.iod.com/news/eu-and-trade/iod-4-in-10-traders-are-now-exporting-less-to-the-eu/
Taxes are from memory ~50% of the cost of fuel (and most of the time that's closer to 70-75%) so if your commute wasn't subsidised and was as heavily taxed as fuel is then I would imagine it could be closer to six grand a year?
Just a guess, others might be able to do the numbers better.
Roads are a very efficient use of resources. Public transport is a very efficient use of space, but a very inefficient use of resources.
The interesting thing is that Scott sees "42% are exporting less" and it triggers duckspeak, whereas I see it and read "58% aren't exporting less", and realise that 58 is more than 42.
Tbf I suspect 50 years is exaggerated; that's far too soon for there to be any benefits from Brexshite.
One can only assume you are being ironic?
If you hear that someone's blood cell count has fallen by 42% do you see that and read 58% of the cells are still there, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a school's pupils fail to meet basic literacy standards do you see that and read 58% of the pupils meet the standard, and realise that 58 is more than 42? If 42% of a hospital's patients die of avoidable infections...
The differences between your attempted analogies and the case originally quoted include: (a) 42% of businesses is noth the same as 42% of trade; and (b) nothing is said about what proportion of the 58% of businesses are exporting more.
'The pair appeared to differ on how rapidly an agreement could be made – Johnson suggested it could be ready by the festival of Diwali in late October, but Modi pointed to the end of the year.
Johnson said: “As the next round of talks begin here next week, we are telling our negotiators, get it done by Diwali in October.”
Modi said there had been “good progress and we have decided to make all efforts to conclude the FTA [free trade agreement] by the end of this year”. Three rounds of talks had already been held.'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/22/india-and-uk-to-press-ahead-with-talks-on-free-trade-deal-modi-johnson
Breaking:
Britain will supply Poland with tanks so it can send T72s to Ukraine, Boris Johnson announces
It represents intensification of the UK military support for Ukraine
He also says that the conflict could last for years as Russia continues brutal and grinding assault
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1517457629630455808
Whatever next, someone complaining that one person says by next Easter while the other says by next Spring?
Scott could have quoted as you have done but he wanted to paint it as a failure as he cannot help himself
@visegrad24
·
1h
The Russian Army just declared that one of their goals in the new phase of the war is to take all of Ukraine’s coastal regions & create a land bridge to Transnistria (de jure part of Moldova).
They also claim that Russian-speakers are persecuted in Transnistria.
Moldova next?
https://twitter.com/visegrad24