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.
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.
Well sure.. but your comment implied that we couldn’t have multilingual conversations because of Brexit. I’ve just had another!
I found a restaurant on the same street as my hotel called ‘La Taberna Del Bierzo’. I initially thought the Bierzo referred to beers (not that that would have influenced me!) but realised after a quick Google that it’s a ‘comarca’ in Léon. I asked the waiter - in lame pidgin Spanish - if they had cecina, the cured beef from Léon, since Bierzo was there. He replied, in halting English that was far superior to my Spanish, “Yes and we hava da best cecina from Léon”
The best thing for your fitness, mental health, time management, congestion and the environment you can do is walk to work. I see very little attempt to make this easier from anyone.
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".
Or what % total the 42% represents versus the likely very small amount left after removing "the same" , are exporting more
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.
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......
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.
Labour is still miles away from Blair pre 1997 levels as Heathener also points out and polling already more 2017 result than 1997 result
Most likely scenario for Labour IMO is a 5-6% swing ending up 2% behind like in 2017 or level pegging. I can see Labour getting anywhehere between 260-300 seats although I'm still cautious. Voter distribution could be much more favourable for Labour if they narrowly regain lots of seats in the North of England plus additional seats in the South while the Tories get pushed back into some of their new Midlands strongholds.
Aren’t council election predictions difficult as the headline polling hides large regional variations where Labour would be miles ahead of the Tories . Most council seats are taking place in Labour friendly areas .
I think the Tories will get completely smashed in northern Metropolitan districts but as they are mainly up by thirds apart from Bury they will avoid too much damage in terms of seat losses even if they experience record lows on councils like Trafford (where they are only defending 7 seats and won't lose more than 5).
I also can't see what councils the LDs can actually gain apart from Woking and Somerset.
I tend to think Scotland and the Midlands will probably save the day for the Tories as the Tory vote is still quite lumpy in their new strongholds in the former (even if preferences dry up somewhat) and I can't see scope for many council losses in the Midlands apart from Newcastle under Lyme to NOC.
London could still be OK for the Tories if they hang onto Barnet.
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 see this logic quite often: substantial, irreversible economic damage is acceptable collateral for the non-economic and/or not-this-generation benefits of Brexit (it's not just Leon - Mogg sells the "not for 50 years" line, and he portrays it as virtuous act to the benefit of posterity).
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
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.
Nonsense. There is no meaningful difference between saying an ambition by Diwali and an ambition by year end. Ambition doesn't mean deadline.
Boris was being respectful naming a date associated with his hosts. That isn't panic or differences apart from those like Scott driven mad by Brexit.
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.
Whereas I look at the original survey and discover that 20% are exporting more, 30% are exporting the same, 42% are exporting less and 7% have stopped exporting to the EU altogether. That's pretty damning, but wholly unsurprising.
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.
Whereas I look at the original survey and discover that 20% are exporting more, 30% are exporting the same, 42% are exporting less and 7% have stopped exporting to the EU altogether. That's pretty damning, but wholly unsurprising.
Are there comparable figures for (a) the typical churn in a normal year, (b) the effect of the current unusual economic circumstances on exports from other G7 countries?
The figures certainly sound bad, but context is everything.
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...
Non dom status, which Labour supports, PPE contracts which were demanded by the Opposition and media, and a bunch of relative irrelevances...
🔴Tories were shocked to receive this message from Chris Pincher:
“Colleagues should know, following the Prime Minister’s remarks in India, that he is happy for the Commons to decide on any referrals to the privileges committee, that we will no longer move our tabled amendment”
The best thing for your fitness, mental health, time management, congestion and the environment you can do is walk to work. I see very little attempt to make this easier from anyone.
To be fair to Boris, Active Travel is something he has pushed, often in the teeth of opposition from his party.
Trouble is, it does need a certain pattern of development to happen, which many places don't have, and which we're not encouraging enough.
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.
It's also untrue. Despite the subsidies the tube is quite pricey - the buses often late or missing and for many, many trips you're talking slow and awkward trips that take for ever. It is almost impossible for public transport to match the convenience of door to door car/bike/m-bike journeys even in many towns and cities. And let's not forget the issue of the weather and carrying shopping,. etc., etc.
The best thing for your fitness, mental health, time management, congestion and the environment you can do is walk to work. I see very little attempt to make this easier from anyone.
To be fair to Boris, Active Travel is something he has pushed, often in the teeth of opposition from his party.
Trouble is, it does need a certain pattern of development to happen, which many places don't have, and which we're not encouraging enough.
There is a huge push for people to get active, if not walking then certainly by bicycle. Listen to any London cabbie for their views on the new cycle lanes here, there and everywhere; cycle lanes that are apparent (and welcome for me, a Boris-biker) for all to see.
And I was visiting a friend nr Cambridge the other day and there was a brand spanking new cycle lane along an A-road so it is not just Khan.
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.
Yup, in the north east we have had to wait for years to replace out of date rolling stock on the metro and northern rail. I’m sure other parts of the country are the same too.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
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
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.
Effective trade deals offer expanded opportunities for UK exporters, not just cheaper imports to the UK
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 see this logic quite often: substantial, irreversible economic damage is acceptable collateral for the non-economic and/or not-this-generation benefits of Brexit (it's not just Leon - Mogg sells the "not for 50 years" line, and he portrays it as virtuous act to the benefit of posterity).
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
No economic damage is “irreversible” unless you count the loss of the sedan chair business as “irreversible economic damage” - and if you do, take pills
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.
Yup, in the north east we have had to wait for years to replace out of date rolling stock on the metro and northern rail. I’m sure other parts of the country are the same too.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
The trains on the Bakerloo Line turn 50 this year.
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
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.'
"by October" is included in "by the end of the year".
So is last week. I think it's clear what Mr Modi means. Hogmanay.
You can be sure it will be another of their "have a shit sandwich UK" deals. Wonder how much cheese Japan has bought to date, imagine trade balance buoyant on the back of it
Latest Opinion Way poll the polar opposite of the earlier Odoxa poll.
Macron 57% (+1) Le Pen 43% (-1)
Fieldwork 20 to 22 April .
In their respective final polls for the first round, both got the 4-point gap between Le Pen and Macron right. Odoxa had a lower and more accurate number for Zemmour and Pecresse compared with Opinion Way, and both underestimated Melenchon.
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.
It's also untrue. Despite the subsidies the tube is quite pricey - the buses often late or missing and for many, many trips you're talking slow and awkward trips that take for ever. It is almost impossible for public transport to match the convenience of door to door car/bike/m-bike journeys even in many towns and cities. And let's not forget the issue of the weather and carrying shopping,. etc., etc.
The big thing you get from mass transit, especially when it's separate from the road network, is predictability;
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.
Nonsense. There is no meaningful difference between saying an ambition by Diwali and an ambition by year end. Ambition doesn't mean deadline.
Boris was being respectful naming a date associated with his hosts. That isn't panic or differences apart from those like Scott driven mad by Brexit.
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.
The taxman doesn't really ask though, does he? Its more extortion with menaces.
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.
Yup, in the north east we have had to wait for years to replace out of date rolling stock on the metro and northern rail. I’m sure other parts of the country are the same too.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
The trains on the Bakerloo Line turn 50 this year.
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.'
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.
Yup, in the north east we have had to wait for years to replace out of date rolling stock on the metro and northern rail. I’m sure other parts of the country are the same too.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
The trains on the Bakerloo Line turn 50 this year.
Since the early 2000’s new rolling stock has been being introduced on a variety of the underground lines. Northern Line, Jubilee Line, Victoria line, Metropolitan Line and they are now replacing the three circle/district/Hammersmith and city lines. A project I worked on in its infancy and was due complete around 2016/2017. Piccadilly is next, trains to be built in Goole.
It's looking bad for Johnson if anyone's listening to the 1.00 BBC News. Lord Hayward thinks hes a gonner. Let's hope so. My hope is that if he goes his whole sycophantic Cabinet go with him
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.
Whereas I look at the original survey and discover that 20% are exporting more, 30% are exporting the same, 42% are exporting less and 7% have stopped exporting to the EU altogether. That's pretty damning, but wholly unsurprising.
Tory foot firmly stuck in mouth now. Disasterous figures.
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.'
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.
Yup, in the north east we have had to wait for years to replace out of date rolling stock on the metro and northern rail. I’m sure other parts of the country are the same too.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
The trains on the Bakerloo Line turn 50 this year.
I raise you Crossrail, 20B and rising
They have been adding to and replacing rolling stock on the underground since the early 2000’s currently replacing H&S, Circle and District line stock. When that’s done it’s the Piccadilly Line next.
It's looking bad for Johnson if anyone's listening to the 1.00 BBC News. Lord Hayward thinks hes a gonner. Let's hope so. My hope is that if he goes his whole sycophantic Cabinet go with him
If the Tories wish to maximise their chances for next GE they need a reset and the strong appearance of a reset.
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 see this logic quite often: substantial, irreversible economic damage is acceptable collateral for the non-economic and/or not-this-generation benefits of Brexit (it's not just Leon - Mogg sells the "not for 50 years" line, and he portrays it as virtuous act to the benefit of posterity).
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
No economic damage is “irreversible” unless you count the loss of the sedan chair business as “irreversible economic damage” - and if you do, take pills
I do mean "irreversible", but not *exactly* in the sedan chair sense.
The economy "as was" is irreversibly damaged (i.e. it has changed in a way that cannot be changed back - Brexit has "got done" - and we are broadly in agreement that change was net negative economically).
The economy "as it one day will be" (in 50 years, say, to pluck a date from the air) may or may not be better. So I would turn your sedan chair example around, and suggest that 50 years out means you are betting on Brexit uniquely advantaging us with respect to the development of hover shoes or similar.
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.'
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.
Nonsense. There is no meaningful difference between saying an ambition by Diwali and an ambition by year end. Ambition doesn't mean deadline.
Boris was being respectful naming a date associated with his hosts. That isn't panic or differences apart from those like Scott driven mad by Brexit.
It does show who's in the driving seat though.
Arguably India needs the deal more than the UK.
2% of Indian exports go to the UK but only 1% of UK exports go to India
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
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.'
NEW I understand Conservative MPs have drafted post-dated no confidence letters ready to be sent to Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee, on May 6, the day after the local elections. More in today's Chopper's Politics newsletter, out now: http://telegraph.co.uk/tw-chopper-nl
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.'
NEW I understand Conservative MPs have drafted post-dated no confidence letters ready to be sent to Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee, on May 6, the day after the local elections. More in today's Chopper's Politics newsletter, out now: http://telegraph.co.uk/tw-chopper-nl
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
The PCP is all talk and no y-fronts. Why don't they just get on with it?
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.
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 see this logic quite often: substantial, irreversible economic damage is acceptable collateral for the non-economic and/or not-this-generation benefits of Brexit (it's not just Leon - Mogg sells the "not for 50 years" line, and he portrays it as virtuous act to the benefit of posterity).
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
No economic damage is “irreversible” unless you count the loss of the sedan chair business as “irreversible economic damage” - and if you do, take pills
I do mean "irreversible", but not *exactly* in the sedan chair sense.
The economy "as was" is irreversibly damaged (i.e. it has changed in a way that cannot be changed back - Brexit has "got done" - and we are broadly in agreement that change was net negative economically).
The economy "as it one day will be" (in 50 years, say, to pluck a date from the air) may or may not be better. So I would turn your sedan chair example around, and suggest that 50 years out means you are betting on Brexit uniquely advantaging us with respect to the development of hover shoes or similar.
I do not deny this possibility.
I think - I may be misremembering - that the great ex-PBer @seant compared Brexit to “having a baby”. I believe I’ve got that right
Anyway. It’s a brilliant metaphor, to my mind, and one that has gone unfairly unnoticed on PB
In that metaphorical context the “irreversible economic damage” is the fact that having a baby will droop your breasts, and give you stretch marks. Irreversible. Agreed
But, you have a baby. It is now up to you - and god, and fate - what you make of that gift. The first years will probably be shit, that’s for sure
And you probably won’t know for 50 years or more if it was the right choice. Some people regret parenting, tho few admit it
I have never grasped this ludicrous dichotomy between the road lobby and public transport lobby. We need both. Good public transport makes for better roads, and many people use both modes.
I have a big SUV and love driving it, in the right context. I also like using buses and tubes as they offer freedom to drink and not faff around parking that cars lack. Meanwhile, the reason why so many people use public transport down here is that it's generally pretty good.
The reason why its eschewed by many northerners is that, outside the likes of Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle and Sheffield, which have decent rapid transit systems, it's bloody awful.
Why hasn't Leeds got a tram, for instance? Pathetic.
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
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 see this logic quite often: substantial, irreversible economic damage is acceptable collateral for the non-economic and/or not-this-generation benefits of Brexit (it's not just Leon - Mogg sells the "not for 50 years" line, and he portrays it as virtuous act to the benefit of posterity).
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
No economic damage is “irreversible” unless you count the loss of the sedan chair business as “irreversible economic damage” - and if you do, take pills
I do mean "irreversible", but not *exactly* in the sedan chair sense.
The economy "as was" is irreversibly damaged (i.e. it has changed in a way that cannot be changed back - Brexit has "got done" - and we are broadly in agreement that change was net negative economically).
The economy "as it one day will be" (in 50 years, say, to pluck a date from the air) may or may not be better. So I would turn your sedan chair example around, and suggest that 50 years out means you are betting on Brexit uniquely advantaging us with respect to the development of hover shoes or similar.
I do not deny this possibility.
I think - I may be misremembering - that the great ex-PBer @seant compared Brexit to “having a baby”. I believe I’ve got that right
Anyway. It’s a brilliant metaphor, to my mind, and one that has gone unfairly unnoticed on PB
In that metaphorical context the “irreversible economic damage” is the fact that having a baby will droop your breasts, and give you stretch marks. Irreversible. Agreed
But, you have a baby. It is now up to you - and god, and fate - what you make of that gift. The first years will probably be shit, that’s for sure
And you probably won’t know for 50 years or more if it was the right choice. Some people regret parenting, tho few admit it
NEW I understand Conservative MPs have drafted post-dated no confidence letters ready to be sent to Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee, on May 6, the day after the local elections. More in today's Chopper's Politics newsletter, out now: http://telegraph.co.uk/tw-chopper-nl
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
The PCP is all talk and no y-fronts. Why don't they just get on with it?
May only went after the 2019 local elections. MPs will want to see how their local Tory council candidates perform in a real election before deciding whether to remove Boris if they think their seats are at risk or not
It's looking bad for Johnson if anyone's listening to the 1.00 BBC News. Lord Hayward thinks hes a gonner. Let's hope so. My hope is that if he goes his whole sycophantic Cabinet go with him
If the Tories wish to maximise their chances for next GE they need a reset and the strong appearance of a reset.
The Tories need to ditch Boris and get a Remainer as leader. Brexit is looking stale and a Rees-Mogg or a Truss would merely prolong the sense of drift and managed decline. The new leader, whilst not advocating a reversal of Brexit, must nevertheless promise to rebuild the European consensus with Britain as its beating heart. That would completely take the wind out of Sir Keir's sails.
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 see this logic quite often: substantial, irreversible economic damage is acceptable collateral for the non-economic and/or not-this-generation benefits of Brexit (it's not just Leon - Mogg sells the "not for 50 years" line, and he portrays it as virtuous act to the benefit of posterity).
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
No economic damage is “irreversible” unless you count the loss of the sedan chair business as “irreversible economic damage” - and if you do, take pills
I do mean "irreversible", but not *exactly* in the sedan chair sense.
The economy "as was" is irreversibly damaged (i.e. it has changed in a way that cannot be changed back - Brexit has "got done" - and we are broadly in agreement that change was net negative economically).
The economy "as it one day will be" (in 50 years, say, to pluck a date from the air) may or may not be better. So I would turn your sedan chair example around, and suggest that 50 years out means you are betting on Brexit uniquely advantaging us with respect to the development of hover shoes or similar.
I do not deny this possibility.
I think - I may be misremembering - that the great ex-PBer @seant compared Brexit to “having a baby”. I believe I’ve got that right
Anyway. It’s a brilliant metaphor, to my mind, and one that has gone unfairly unnoticed on PB
In that metaphorical context the “irreversible economic damage” is the fact that having a baby will droop your breasts, and give you stretch marks. Irreversible. Agreed
But, you have a baby. It is now up to you - and god, and fate - what you make of that gift. The first years will probably be shit, that’s for sure
And you probably won’t know for 50 years or more if it was the right choice. Some people regret parenting, tho few admit it
An interim report from the Commission on Having Kids (Cambridge) has, after 8 years, determined that it is seriously economically damaging, but that the non-economic benefits are worth it.
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.'
"by October" is included in "by the end of the year".
Oh dear, another agenda being ruined by facts.
Whatever next, someone complaining that one person says by next Easter while the other says by next Spring?
Is October the end of the year?
Yes it is by the end of the year.
By your logic, so is Mayday.
It is.
When we were having vaccine targets last year there were routinely comments interspersed with "by Easter" or "by Spring". Would you have claimed that "by Easter" is contradictory to "by Spring" or vice-versa?
That's the exact same sort of time frame as "by Diwali" and "by the end of the year".
Like a kind of Trumpite Blackpool, but a lot warmer (in multiple ways)
is the Grand Ole Opry just a tourist trap? Have only seen it from the series, er, Nashville, which was entertaining if no Succession.
Hard to say. The whole town is a tourist trap. It’s built on music and partying (and they take both quite seriously). It is itself.
So maybe the answer is no. It doesn’t feel fake. You come here to listen to music and get wasted, the same way you go to the City to work with money or to New Zealand to buy dairy. It feels a lot less grim than some other American cities (or indeed European cities)
I have never grasped this ludicrous dichotomy between the road lobby and public transport lobby. We need both. Good public transport makes for better roads, and many people use both modes.
I have a big SUV and love driving it, in the right context. I also like using buses and tubes as they offer freedom to drink and not faff around parking that cars lack. Meanwhile, the reason why so many people use public transport down here is that it's generally pretty good.
The reason why its eschewed by many northerners is that, outside the likes of Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle and Sheffield, which have decent rapid transit systems, it's bloody awful.
Why hasn't Leeds got a tram, for instance? Pathetic.
Why are trams good?
With the advent of cheaper and cheaper battery powered electric buses, is the extra expense worth it? Considering the vast amounts of money that tram lines apparently cost.....
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.
It's also untrue. Despite the subsidies the tube is quite pricey - the buses often late or missing and for many, many trips you're talking slow and awkward trips that take for ever. It is almost impossible for public transport to match the convenience of door to door car/bike/m-bike journeys even in many towns and cities. And let's not forget the issue of the weather and carrying shopping,. etc., etc.
Wrong. London buses are awesome and how you ascertain they are "late or missing" when one comes past every 3-5 minutes is beyond me. Nobody ever looks at the timetable, why would you? There's a very accurate GPS system which sends live times straight to a smartphone app, and they cost £1.65 to go any distance on one route. The vast Night Bus network runs 24/7.
Admittedly, bus services are beyond shite outside London – largely because of their deregulation outside the capital, one of the biggest blunders in UK transport history.
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.
Yup, in the north east we have had to wait for years to replace out of date rolling stock on the metro and northern rail. I’m sure other parts of the country are the same too.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
The trains on the Bakerloo Line turn 50 this year.
I raise you Crossrail, 20B and rising
They have been adding to and replacing rolling stock on the underground since the early 2000’s currently replacing H&S, Circle and District line stock. When that’s done it’s the Piccadilly Line next.
Piccadilly Line rolling stock is 50 years old next year. 40-50 years is the typical age at replacement of Underground rolling stock (eg 1938 Northern Line trains ran until 1988, 1967 Victoria Line stock were replaced in 2009). I love the Tyne and Wear Metro (I once travelled the whole network as a birthday treat when I was a kid) but with the rolling stock currently getting replaced it doesn't seem like it has been poorly treated compared to the London Underground.
It's looking bad for Johnson if anyone's listening to the 1.00 BBC News. Lord Hayward thinks hes a gonner. Let's hope so. My hope is that if he goes his whole sycophantic Cabinet go with him
If the Tories wish to maximise their chances for next GE they need a reset and the strong appearance of a reset.
The Tories need to ditch Boris and get a Remainer as leader. Brexit is looking stale and a Rees-Mogg or a Truss would merely prolong the sense of drift and managed decline. The new leader, whilst not advocating a reversal of Brexit, must nevertheless promise to rebuild the European consensus with Britain as its beating heart. That would completely take the wind out of Sir Keir's sails.
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 see this logic quite often: substantial, irreversible economic damage is acceptable collateral for the non-economic and/or not-this-generation benefits of Brexit (it's not just Leon - Mogg sells the "not for 50 years" line, and he portrays it as virtuous act to the benefit of posterity).
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
No economic damage is “irreversible” unless you count the loss of the sedan chair business as “irreversible economic damage” - and if you do, take pills
I do mean "irreversible", but not *exactly* in the sedan chair sense.
The economy "as was" is irreversibly damaged (i.e. it has changed in a way that cannot be changed back - Brexit has "got done" - and we are broadly in agreement that change was net negative economically).
The economy "as it one day will be" (in 50 years, say, to pluck a date from the air) may or may not be better. So I would turn your sedan chair example around, and suggest that 50 years out means you are betting on Brexit uniquely advantaging us with respect to the development of hover shoes or similar.
I do not deny this possibility.
I think - I may be misremembering - that the great ex-PBer @seant compared Brexit to “having a baby”. I believe I’ve got that right
Anyway. It’s a brilliant metaphor, to my mind, and one that has gone unfairly unnoticed on PB
In that metaphorical context the “irreversible economic damage” is the fact that having a baby will droop your breasts, and give you stretch marks. Irreversible. Agreed
But, you have a baby. It is now up to you - and god, and fate - what you make of that gift. The first years will probably be shit, that’s for sure
And you probably won’t know for 50 years or more if it was the right choice. Some people regret parenting, tho few admit it
An interim report from the Commission on Having Kids (Cambridge) has, after 8 years, determined that it is seriously economically damaging, but that the non-economic benefits are worth it.
(The Commission expects to revise this opinion based on the state of diplomatic relations between 2026 and 2031.)
It's looking bad for Johnson if anyone's listening to the 1.00 BBC News. Lord Hayward thinks hes a gonner. Let's hope so. My hope is that if he goes his whole sycophantic Cabinet go with him
If the Tories wish to maximise their chances for next GE they need a reset and the strong appearance of a reset.
The Tories need to ditch Boris and get a Remainer as leader. Brexit is looking stale and a Rees-Mogg or a Truss would merely prolong the sense of drift and managed decline. The new leader, whilst not advocating a reversal of Brexit, must nevertheless promise to rebuild the European consensus with Britain as its beating heart. That would completely take the wind out of Sir Keir's sails.
No it would lead to mass defections of Leavers from the Tories to RefUK while winning back virtually no Remainers from Starmer Labour and the LDs.
The Tories would risk falling to 3rd as they were at the end of the May era behind Labour and the Brexit Party
NEW I understand Conservative MPs have drafted post-dated no confidence letters ready to be sent to Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee, on May 6, the day after the local elections. More in today's Chopper's Politics newsletter, out now: http://telegraph.co.uk/tw-chopper-nl
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
The PCP is all talk and no y-fronts. Why don't they just get on with it?
Holding their for until every last one of them is tarred with the Johnson brush
I have never grasped this ludicrous dichotomy between the road lobby and public transport lobby. We need both. Good public transport makes for better roads, and many people use both modes.
I have a big SUV and love driving it, in the right context. I also like using buses and tubes as they offer freedom to drink and not faff around parking that cars lack. Meanwhile, the reason why so many people use public transport down here is that it's generally pretty good.
The reason why its eschewed by many northerners is that, outside the likes of Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle and Sheffield, which have decent rapid transit systems, it's bloody awful.
Why hasn't Leeds got a tram, for instance? Pathetic.
I assume by 'down here' you mean London because in the rest of the SE it is non existent unless you want to go to London.
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.
It's also untrue. Despite the subsidies the tube is quite pricey - the buses often late or missing and for many, many trips you're talking slow and awkward trips that take for ever. It is almost impossible for public transport to match the convenience of door to door car/bike/m-bike journeys even in many towns and cities. And let's not forget the issue of the weather and carrying shopping,. etc., etc.
Wrong. London buses are awesome and how you ascertain they are "late or missing" when one comes past every 3-5 minutes is beyond me. Nobody ever looks at the timetable, why would you? There's a very accurate GPS system which sends live times straight to a smartphone app, and they cost £1.65 to go any distance on one route. The vast Night Bus network runs 24/7.
Admittedly, bus services are beyond shite outside London – largely because of their deregulation outside the capital, one of the biggest blunders in UK transport history.
Edinburgh buses are really rather good in my experience
It's looking bad for Johnson if anyone's listening to the 1.00 BBC News. Lord Hayward thinks hes a gonner. Let's hope so. My hope is that if he goes his whole sycophantic Cabinet go with him
If the Tories wish to maximise their chances for next GE they need a reset and the strong appearance of a reset.
The Tories need to ditch Boris and get a Remainer as leader. Brexit is looking stale and a Rees-Mogg or a Truss would merely prolong the sense of drift and managed decline. The new leader, whilst not advocating a reversal of Brexit, must nevertheless promise to rebuild the European consensus with Britain as its beating heart. That would completely take the wind out of Sir Keir's sails.
No it would lead to mass defections of Leavers from the Tories to RefUK while winning back virtually no Remainers from Starmer Labour and the LDs.
The Tories would risk falling to 3rd as they were at the end of the May era behind Labour and the Brexit Party
Mordaunt or Wallace are probably the best choices if there is a vacancy although I personally think it's 50/50 thar Johnson either stands down in 2023 or fights 2024 and there is close to zero chance of him standing down/being forced out this year
I have never grasped this ludicrous dichotomy between the road lobby and public transport lobby. We need both. Good public transport makes for better roads, and many people use both modes.
I have a big SUV and love driving it, in the right context. I also like using buses and tubes as they offer freedom to drink and not faff around parking that cars lack. Meanwhile, the reason why so many people use public transport down here is that it's generally pretty good.
The reason why its eschewed by many northerners is that, outside the likes of Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle and Sheffield, which have decent rapid transit systems, it's bloody awful.
Why hasn't Leeds got a tram, for instance? Pathetic.
Why are trams good?
With the advent of cheaper and cheaper battery powered electric buses, is the extra expense worth it? Considering the vast amounts of money that tram lines apparently cost.....
Trams are popular and have priority (in most cases). It's true that you could have a similar system with buses but are there any such exemplars in the UK? Buses outside London are almost universally shite due largely to their deregulation.
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.
Yup, in the north east we have had to wait for years to replace out of date rolling stock on the metro and northern rail. I’m sure other parts of the country are the same too.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
The trains on the Bakerloo Line turn 50 this year.
I raise you Crossrail, 20B and rising
They have been adding to and replacing rolling stock on the underground since the early 2000’s currently replacing H&S, Circle and District line stock. When that’s done it’s the Piccadilly Line next.
Piccadilly Line rolling stock is 50 years old next year. 40-50 years is the typical age at replacement of Underground rolling stock (eg 1938 Northern Line trains ran until 1988, 1967 Victoria Line stock were replaced in 2009). I love the Tyne and Wear Metro (I once travelled the whole network as a birthday treat when I was a kid) but with the rolling stock currently getting replaced it doesn't seem like it has been poorly treated compared to the London Underground.
Yeah, the Newcastle tube is superb. Visitors to that city are often surprised by how extensive it is. I find it bizarre that cities like Leeds haven't managed anything similar.
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.'
"by October" is included in "by the end of the year".
Oh dear, another agenda being ruined by facts.
Whatever next, someone complaining that one person says by next Easter while the other says by next Spring?
Is October the end of the year?
Yes it is by the end of the year.
By your logic, so is Mayday.
It is.
When we were having vaccine targets last year there were routinely comments interspersed with "by Easter" or "by Spring". Would you have claimed that "by Easter" is contradictory to "by Spring" or vice-versa?
That's the exact same sort of time frame as "by Diwali" and "by the end of the year".
It is also typical of Boris. He randomly farts out a site-specific soundbite with no regard to the consequences as though there were no other factors to consider and then has to be corrected by people who are in a position to know better.
October of course is exactly year end - only a couple of months, only a few minutes partying, only a vague understanding of the law, only a bit longer lockdown, schools closed for only a few months...
This is Boris all over. But you continue to love him. Why, as @Roger asked earlier, have you chosen but one of his historic and ongoing Borisisms as a reason to fall out with him?
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.
It's also untrue. Despite the subsidies the tube is quite pricey - the buses often late or missing and for many, many trips you're talking slow and awkward trips that take for ever. It is almost impossible for public transport to match the convenience of door to door car/bike/m-bike journeys even in many towns and cities. And let's not forget the issue of the weather and carrying shopping,. etc., etc.
Wrong. London buses are awesome and how you ascertain they are "late or missing" when one comes past every 3-5 minutes is beyond me. Nobody ever looks at the timetable, why would you? There's a very accurate GPS system which sends live times straight to a smartphone app, and they cost £1.65 to go any distance on one route. The vast Night Bus network runs 24/7.
Admittedly, bus services are beyond shite outside London – largely because of their deregulation outside the capital, one of the biggest blunders in UK transport history.
Edinburgh buses are really rather good in my experience
Might well be different in Scotland, I'm really talking from an anglocentric POV.
Comments
I found a restaurant on the same street as my hotel called ‘La Taberna Del Bierzo’. I initially thought the Bierzo referred to beers (not that that would have influenced me!) but realised after a quick Google that it’s a ‘comarca’ in Léon. I asked the waiter - in lame pidgin Spanish - if they had cecina, the cured beef from Léon, since Bierzo was there. He replied, in halting English that was far superior to my Spanish, “Yes and we hava da best cecina from Léon”
Tastes good too!
*sighs*
I see very little attempt to make this easier from anyone.
I also can't see what councils the LDs can actually gain apart from Woking and Somerset.
I tend to think Scotland and the Midlands will probably save the day for the Tories as the Tory vote is still quite lumpy in their new strongholds in the former (even if preferences dry up somewhat) and I can't see scope for many council losses in the Midlands apart from Newcastle under Lyme to NOC.
London could still be OK for the Tories if they hang onto Barnet.
That we've damaged less than half of our exporters is clearly "better than we had feared".
And that is a perfectly consistent line to take, I just don't hold with it myself.
Boris drives a coach and horses through the very Ukraine argument he’s used to cling on to power. 🤦🏻♀️
https://twitter.com/fifisyms/status/1517465784410419200
Swing back has a start point, as well as an end point at election time, and that start point is not necessarily now.
Party figures want one of “the great and the good” to take Chris Bryant’s place on the privileges committee temporarily after he recused himself
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b039d19a-c1a9-11ec-8413-422ef6319ad0?shareToken=46ed38427831aeff277dc43c97164c7b
“Unique circumstances”
Boris was being respectful naming a date associated with his hosts. That isn't panic or differences apart from those like Scott driven mad by Brexit.
The figures certainly sound bad, but context is everything.
Thirteen minutes before debate on lockdown parties, Downing Street acknowledged MPs weren’t ‘prepared to go over the top’ for Boris Johnson
Thread 👇🧵
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/21/partygate-investigation-uturn-vote-boris-johnson-privileges/
🔴Tories were shocked to receive this message from Chris Pincher:
“Colleagues should know, following the Prime Minister’s remarks in India, that he is happy for the Commons to decide on any referrals to the privileges committee, that we will no longer move our tabled amendment”
Trouble is, it does need a certain pattern of development to happen, which many places don't have, and which we're not encouraging enough.
The polls and local elections will be more significant
Macron 57% (+1)
Le Pen 43% (-1)
Fieldwork 20 to 22 April .
And I was visiting a friend nr Cambridge the other day and there was a brand spanking new cycle lane along an A-road so it is not just Khan.
If only we’d had the same proportion of investment compared to London then there’d be far less levelling up,required.
Superb
https://www.tomforth.co.uk/birminghamisasmallcity/
This article compares trams and buses in rush hour, but cars will end up caught in the same jams.
Thanks here all week
Talking heads on r4 unanimous that mood has flipped against phatboi.
So you aren’t that hard done by.
“It is death by a thousand cuts” #wato
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1517478536776454145
The economy "as was" is irreversibly damaged (i.e. it has changed in a way that cannot be changed back - Brexit has "got done" - and we are broadly in agreement that change was net negative economically).
The economy "as it one day will be" (in 50 years, say, to pluck a date from the air) may or may not be better. So I would turn your sedan chair example around, and suggest that 50 years out means you are betting on Brexit uniquely advantaging us with respect to the development of hover shoes or similar.
I do not deny this possibility.
Like a kind of Trumpite Blackpool, but a lot warmer (in multiple ways)
2% of Indian exports go to the UK but only 1% of UK exports go to India
As I already said ambition is not deadline
Would you quibble about one person saying Easter while another says Spring? Would you quibble that 31st May is in Spring but after Easter?
More in today's Chopper's Politics newsletter, out now: http://telegraph.co.uk/tw-chopper-nl
The PCP is all talk and no y-fronts. Why don't they just get on with it?
Loving it.
Oh, cuts. Sorry, I misread.
Anyway. It’s a brilliant metaphor, to my mind, and one that has gone unfairly unnoticed on PB
In that metaphorical context the “irreversible economic damage” is the fact that having a baby will droop your breasts, and give you stretch marks. Irreversible. Agreed
But, you have a baby. It is now up to you - and god, and fate - what you make of that gift. The first years will probably be shit, that’s for sure
And you probably won’t know for 50 years or more if it was the right choice. Some people regret parenting, tho few admit it
I have a big SUV and love driving it, in the right context. I also like using buses and tubes as they offer freedom to drink and not faff around parking that cars lack. Meanwhile, the reason why so many people use public transport down here is that it's generally pretty good.
The reason why its eschewed by many northerners is that, outside the likes of Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle and Sheffield, which have decent rapid transit systems, it's bloody awful.
Why hasn't Leeds got a tram, for instance? Pathetic.
PM says he’ll still be in no 10 in Oct ..
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1517482162169208832
When we were having vaccine targets last year there were routinely comments interspersed with "by Easter" or "by Spring". Would you have claimed that "by Easter" is contradictory to "by Spring" or vice-versa?
That's the exact same sort of time frame as "by Diwali" and "by the end of the year".
So maybe the answer is no. It doesn’t feel fake. You come here to listen to music and get wasted, the same way you go to the City to work with money or to New Zealand to buy dairy. It feels a lot less grim than some other American cities (or indeed European cities)
I'm not chasing after this carrot, they can fuck off until they actually do something.
With the advent of cheaper and cheaper battery powered electric buses, is the extra expense worth it? Considering the vast amounts of money that tram lines apparently cost.....
Admittedly, bus services are beyond shite outside London – largely because of their deregulation outside the capital, one of the biggest blunders in UK transport history.
The Tories would risk falling to 3rd as they were at the end of the May era behind Labour and the Brexit Party
And, in any case, history teaches us that the 360 potential, er, cuts rarely translate into more than a couple of cuts when the time comes.
October of course is exactly year end - only a couple of months, only a few minutes partying, only a vague understanding of the law, only a bit longer lockdown, schools closed for only a few months...
This is Boris all over. But you continue to love him. Why, as @Roger asked earlier, have you chosen but one of his historic and ongoing Borisisms as a reason to fall out with him?