Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Is Liz Truss still a republican? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
Is Liz Truss still a republican? – politicalbetting.com

Video: Footage of Liz Truss rightly denouncing the monarchy.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584
    E pluribus unum
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    edited October 9
    QTWTAIN

    That is, she is not a republican. Why is the King getting involved in party politics if people hold on until the next election? Not really seeing that.

    Of course the Tories do not want any bye elections in the current polling.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    edited October 9
    Mrs C has just come in briefly.

    "What are they saying on PB? How long do they think Truss will remain?"

    *explains the theory set out above, and the rationale - to have them crying and screaming for "Boris" to "come back please"*

    Mrs C fgoes out, speechlessly shaking her head at the logic* ...

    *Edit: not that therte is anything wrong with the logic ...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    I must say, the King should not have any interaction with politics at all except to deal with deadlocks in appointing a PM. Anything else, like trying to get special treatment in legislation, or this sort of thing, wrecks the myth still more.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    edited October 9
    DavidL said:

    QTWTAIN

    That is, she is not a republican. Why is the King getting involved in party politics if people hold on until the next election? Not really seeing that.

    Of course the Tories do not want any bye elections in the current polling.

    Because HM would have to agree to do something dodgy, ie delay, with political motivations, rather than do the bog normal rubber-stamping.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    DavidL said:

    QTWTAIN

    That is, she is not a republican. Why is the King getting involved in party politics if people hold on until the next election? Not really seeing that.

    Of course the Tories do not want any bye elections in the current polling.

    by elections

    Though 'bye elections is probably also what these will be from a tory POV
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    I am always nervous of making what might be deemed a sexist comment but Truss has fairly blossomed once she picked up the Tory flag, hasn't she?
  • Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    DavidL said:

    I am always nervous of making what might be deemed a sexist comment but Truss has fairly blossomed once she picked up the Tory flag, hasn't she?

    More money for personal presentation than when she was a student? (Which applies to me and a trillion males too.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Objection!

    Leon is not perpetually half-cut; sometimes he's fully-cut.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    I am always nervous of making what might be deemed a sexist comment but Truss has fairly blossomed once she picked up the Tory flag, hasn't she?

    More money for personal presentation than when she was a student? (Which applies to me and a trillion males too.)
    Possibly. My wife's theory is that there is a group of women who are quite smart at school but not in the populars wbo focus on their studies and then give more attention to their personal appearance once it becomes an important part of their career later on.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Everything about this this problem is a thing which would not be a thing, if you designed the system rastionally from scratch: that there are appointed Lords, that phatboi gets to appoint them, that MPs can be appointed, that there is a King, that he has a say in the matter, and that he does not have a real say in the matter. Throw mad Lizzie into the mix and something is guaranteed to break.

    There is no convention I know of as to when resignation honours are published, why not delay till immediately after dissolution?
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    BRACE!
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,124
    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    edited October 9
    IshmaelZ said:

    Everything about this this problem is a thing which would not be a thing, if you designed the system rastionally from scratch: that there are appointed Lords, that phatboi gets to appoint them, that MPs can be appointed, that there is a King, that he has a say in the matter, and that he does not have a real say in the matter. Throw mad Lizzie into the mix and something is guaranteed to break.

    There is no convention I know of as to when resignation honours are published, why not delay till immediately after dissolution?

    Be just as logical to have the "resignation" honours immediately after the resignation, in that case.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584
    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Ribble Valley in 1990/91 when David Waddington went to the Lords?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    Can we dare to dream that this is true?

    “Watch this video. Dozens of others like it from different towns & cities. It's UNBELIEVABLE what's happening in Iran.
    ‎One conclusion from these videos: it's not that Iran's regime "will fall". It's that Iran's regime *is falling*.
    ‎⁦‪#IranRevolution‬⁩”

    https://twitter.com/kshahrooz/status/1578929480038379521?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    Five miles from anywhere. I'd better buy a bicycle.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,124
    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Edit: Quentin Hogg caused a by-election in Marylebone in 1970 on being appointed Lord Chancellor by Heath though I'm not sure he ever took his seat.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    I think that the problem with that question is the word "elevated". I suspect almost no MP would regard it that way, more an acknowledgement that your career, such as it was, is over and its time to cash in the chips.

    I am sure that this is in my list of reasons to abolish the HoLs, possibly about 430?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    You only do planes, trains, and… Albanian taxis anyway.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,124

    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Ribble Valley in 1990/91 when David Waddington went to the Lords?
    Yes, that counts and of course the Tories lost the seat. Any advance?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    Has the Kerch Bridge distracted us from something amazing in Iran?!


    “never seen demonstrators and police marching together in iran. if it’s not a tipping point, it’s in the vicinity. ht @dpatrikarakos”

    https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1578944924418203650?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    DavidL said:

    I am always nervous of making what might be deemed a sexist comment but Truss has fairly blossomed once she picked up the Tory flag, hasn't she?

    Politically?
    No.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Shit, Braverman wants to make cannabis class A

    https://twitter.com/andycorneys/status/1579006733091221504/photo/1

    Which is sort of right, but by the same token she should be downgrading psilocybin and LSD. And DMT.

    Cracking season for liberty caps on Dartmoor, unrelatedly.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    DavidL said:

    I am always nervous of making what might be deemed a sexist comment but Truss has fairly blossomed once she picked up the Tory flag, hasn't she?

    No.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    You only do planes, trains, and… Albanian taxis anyway.
    Those Albanian taxis seem an excellent investment, generating endless articles for the flint Times, the Spectator and sundry other rags.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584
    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Ribble Valley in 1990/91 when David Waddington went to the Lords?
    Yes, that counts and of course the Tories lost the seat. Any advance?
    Nope. Prior to that was 1983 and Willie Whitelaw.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926
    Think King Charles would be wise not to approve this move. The MPs concerned are at liberty to withdraw their acceptance of peerages on this round and trust Truss to renominate them for peerages at a later date.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    IshmaelZ said:

    Shit, Braverman wants to make cannabis class A

    https://twitter.com/andycorneys/status/1579006733091221504/photo/1

    Which is sort of right, but by the same token she should be downgrading psilocybin and LSD. And DMT.

    Cracking season for liberty caps on Dartmoor, unrelatedly.

    A good mast year for shares in prison building and operating firms, too, at this rate.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    A dive into the details of the dodgy Florida vaccine study published yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/kmpanthagani/status/1578921562761465857
    Florida just announced the results of an analysis that they performed, saying the results show "an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39" for the mRNA vaccines, and recommend this group not receive these vaccines.

    Is this justified? Let's look at the data...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    FF43 said:

    Think King Charles would be wise not to approve this move. The MPs concerned are at liberty to withdraw their acceptance of peerages on this round and trust Truss to renominate them for peerages at a later date.

    Isn't it a Morton's Fork, though?

    KC obeys what Ms T apparently proposes = political intervention
    KC refuses what Ms T ditto = political intervention
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,124

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Ribble Valley in 1990/91 when David Waddington went to the Lords?
    Yes, that counts and of course the Tories lost the seat. Any advance?
    Nope. Prior to that was 1983 and Willie Whitelaw.
    So just three in the last 60 or so years and Johnson wants nine in one go. Bonkers and of course Truss should refuse the lot of 'em.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    Leon said:

    Can we dare to dream that this is true?

    “Watch this video. Dozens of others like it from different towns & cities. It's UNBELIEVABLE what's happening in Iran.
    ‎One conclusion from these videos: it's not that Iran's regime "will fall". It's that Iran's regime *is falling*.
    ‎⁦‪#IranRevolution‬⁩”

    https://twitter.com/kshahrooz/status/1578929480038379521?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw

    Not yet. Hundreds have been arrested, beaten and tortured as a result of these protests. The protestors I have seen have been mainly young women, often school kids. That would cause us a lot of angst, the Guidance patrol in Iran rather less so.
  • alednamalednam Posts: 172
    I suppose Liz Truss might get wind of the fact that there is precedent for a Kind to dissolve Parliament, when he recognizes that “there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House of Commons is not the opinion of the electors”.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,552
    Braverman is a fxcking lunatic ! The UK drugs policy has been an abject failure for decades and this vile woman decides to make it worse by incarcerating people for having a joint .
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 636
    IshmaelZ said:

    Shit, Braverman wants to make cannabis class A

    https://twitter.com/andycorneys/status/1579006733091221504/photo/1

    Which is sort of right, but by the same token she should be downgrading psilocybin and LSD. And DMT.

    Cracking season for liberty caps on Dartmoor, unrelatedly.

    An Erling-Haaland-esque attempt to become axiomatically as the worst home secretary ever in record time, with an avalanche of terrible, evidence-free ideas and stupid statements.
  • Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    Think King Charles would be wise not to approve this move. The MPs concerned are at liberty to withdraw their acceptance of peerages on this round and trust Truss to renominate them for peerages at a later date.

    Isn't it a Morton's Fork, though?

    KC obeys what Ms T apparently proposes = political intervention
    KC refuses what Ms T ditto = political intervention
    KC does what the PM suggests is not a political intervention, is it?

    Opponents of the PM frequently seem to want the monarch to intervene to object to what the PM is doing, like with prorogation of Parliament and Boris. That's not the monarch's place to do.

    If the monarch wants to object to what the PM is doing, they should abdicate and seek elected office themselves.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    nico679 said:

    Braverman is a fxcking lunatic ! The UK drugs policy has been an abject failure for decades and this vile woman decides to make it worse by incarcerating people for having a joint .

    If we're going for Singapore-on-Thames, we might as well do it properly. :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    You only do planes, trains, and… Albanian taxis anyway.
    Those Albanian taxis seem an excellent investment, generating endless articles for the flint Times, the Spectator and sundry other rags.
    Possibly expenseable, too.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,124
    alednam said:

    I suppose Liz Truss might get wind of the fact that there is precedent for a Kind to dissolve Parliament, when he recognizes that “there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House of Commons is not the opinion of the electors”.

    What is this precedent? Can't think of anything close since the advent of democracy, and probably long before that too.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    TSE said: "Given her previous republican allegiances perhaps she is playing the long game to destroy the monarchy ..."

    I think you are imputing too much in the way of planning for Ms Truss. I think it is simple survival that is kicking in. Ms Dorries is sitting on a 24,000(ish) majority, if the replacement candidate lost that then it would be all over for the Bluekippers.


    "I do wonder if this in fact an evil genius plan from Boris Johnson,..."

    I suspect that is nearer the mark, it does smack of his brand of low, animal cunning for self-advancement, but if it leads to a GE, he will be gone, because on current polling he will lose his seat.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,844
    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Ribble Valley in 1990/91 when David Waddington went to the Lords?
    Yes, that counts and of course the Tories lost the seat. Any advance?
    Nope. Prior to that was 1983 and Willie Whitelaw.
    So just three in the last 60 or so years and Johnson wants nine in one go. Bonkers and of course Truss should refuse the lot of 'em.
    Bristol SE 1961 on the reluctant elevation of Tony Benn.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    nico679 said:

    Braverman is a fxcking lunatic ! The UK drugs policy has been an abject failure for decades and this vile woman decides to make it worse by incarcerating people for having a joint .

    We are less willing to accept that the war on drugs is lost than Putin is with the Ukraine but it all depends with what you do with it. I have expressed my admiration for the Lord Advocate's position in Scotland before: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58652876

    Personally I would be quite relaxed about upgrading cannabis to class A if the possessors are not prosecuted but the suppliers are.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Can we dare to dream that this is true?

    “Watch this video. Dozens of others like it from different towns & cities. It's UNBELIEVABLE what's happening in Iran.
    ‎One conclusion from these videos: it's not that Iran's regime "will fall". It's that Iran's regime *is falling*.
    ‎⁦‪#IranRevolution‬⁩”

    https://twitter.com/kshahrooz/status/1578929480038379521?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw

    Not yet. Hundreds have been arrested, beaten and tortured as a result of these protests. The protestors I have seen have been mainly young women, often school kids. That would cause us a lot of angst, the Guidance patrol in Iran rather less so.
    The bravery of these young women is phenomenal. Teenage girls standing up to armed thugs. Moving

    I pray they succeed. In a time of darkness, the ending of this vile regime would be a marvellous light
    I don’t want to get my hopes up too much, as it’s never entirely obvious that a tipping point has been reached until after it happens.
    But it does look very different and more widely based than previous protests.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    Ordinary Iranians confront and then take down the secret police


    https://twitter.com/dschwammenthal/status/1579014271232405504?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw

    We’ve been here before but one day the people WILL win
  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Can we dare to dream that this is true?

    “Watch this video. Dozens of others like it from different towns & cities. It's UNBELIEVABLE what's happening in Iran.
    ‎One conclusion from these videos: it's not that Iran's regime "will fall". It's that Iran's regime *is falling*.
    ‎⁦‪#IranRevolution‬⁩”

    https://twitter.com/kshahrooz/status/1578929480038379521?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw

    Not yet. Hundreds have been arrested, beaten and tortured as a result of these protests. The protestors I have seen have been mainly young women, often school kids. That would cause us a lot of angst, the Guidance patrol in Iran rather less so.
    The bravery of these young women is phenomenal. Teenage girls standing up to armed thugs. Moving

    I pray they succeed. In a time of darkness, the ending of this vile regime would be a marvellous light
    I won't hold my breath at this being the long-justified end for this vile regime, there's been false dawns before.

    But having said that, the last few years people have seemed to be increasingly down on democracy. With the failure of the Russian invasion of Ukraine which will likely see Putin fall too, and this movement in Russia, it could be that 2022 is a bad year for totalitarian regimes instead.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,124

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Ribble Valley in 1990/91 when David Waddington went to the Lords?
    Yes, that counts and of course the Tories lost the seat. Any advance?
    Nope. Prior to that was 1983 and Willie Whitelaw.
    So just three in the last 60 or so years and Johnson wants nine in one go. Bonkers and of course Truss should refuse the lot of 'em.
    Bristol SE 1961 on the reluctant elevation of Tony Benn.
    Yep, so we're now up to four.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    Hi, sorry to bother you but this is one of my occasional postings. Some of you may recall the first in my Ukraine War series (see [1]). The sequel - yes, "Ukraine War II" - depicted the Russian invasion as if it was in the UK instead of Ukraine, depicting events in recognisable British locations transposed from their UKR equivalents. I can't speak for the quality of the writing but (except for one flourish referring to an incident in "Red Storm Rising") it was my best efforts at getting the areas and events right

    It was written up and sent to OGH and his sons in August and was accepted. Unfortunately the election of Truss and the death of the Monarch put it on the backburner and the recent Ukraine advances make it out of date.

    To prevent it being lost, I am making it available to you via this posting. If you want a copy of the Word document, and its accompanying concordance explaining the references, let me know and I'll PM you a copy.

    I will post this reminder once a day until Monday 10th, and I will host a Q&A on Tuesday 11th in the unlikely event anybody wants to discuss it.

    Notes
    [1] https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/02/why-ukraine-was-particularly-vulnerable/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    nico679 said:

    Braverman is a fxcking lunatic ! The UK drugs policy has been an abject failure for decades and this vile woman decides to make it worse by incarcerating people for having a joint .

    Agreed.
    The answer to the recent proliferation of different kinds of cannabis, some much more powerful, isn’t criminal sanctions but rather decriminalisation and regulation of the market.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926

    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    Think King Charles would be wise not to approve this move. The MPs concerned are at liberty to withdraw their acceptance of peerages on this round and trust Truss to renominate them for peerages at a later date.

    Isn't it a Morton's Fork, though?

    KC obeys what Ms T apparently proposes = political intervention
    KC refuses what Ms T ditto = political intervention
    KC does what the PM suggests is not a political intervention, is it?

    Opponents of the PM frequently seem to want the monarch to intervene to object to what the PM is doing, like with prorogation of Parliament and Boris. That's not the monarch's place to do.

    If the monarch wants to object to what the PM is doing, they should abdicate and seek elected office themselves.
    The King says, "You are asking me to approve a dodgy constitutional manoeuvre. I don't approve it." If Truss finds a way to go ahead anyway, that's not his problem.

    If he goes ahead with this, he sets up problems for when Starmer, probably, becomes PM in 2024 and may choose to override the arrangement.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    What is a U.S. general doing shilling for murderous dictators ?
    Oh, it’s Flynn.

    Michael Flynn says Putin and his Security Council Dep Medvedev are “bold leaders who have everything at stake in terms of protecting their country,” and Zelensky is a “foolish person, a dangerous fool.”
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1578925471685054467
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Can we dare to dream that this is true?

    “Watch this video. Dozens of others like it from different towns & cities. It's UNBELIEVABLE what's happening in Iran.
    ‎One conclusion from these videos: it's not that Iran's regime "will fall". It's that Iran's regime *is falling*.
    ‎⁦‪#IranRevolution‬⁩”

    https://twitter.com/kshahrooz/status/1578929480038379521?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw

    Not yet. Hundreds have been arrested, beaten and tortured as a result of these protests. The protestors I have seen have been mainly young women, often school kids. That would cause us a lot of angst, the Guidance patrol in Iran rather less so.
    The bravery of these young women is phenomenal. Teenage girls standing up to armed thugs. Moving

    I pray they succeed. In a time of darkness, the ending of this vile regime would be a marvellous light
    I won't hold my breath at this being the long-justified end for this vile regime, there's been false dawns before.

    But having said that, the last few years people have seemed to be increasingly down on democracy. With the failure of the Russian invasion of Ukraine which will likely see Putin fall too, and this movement in Russia, it could be that 2022 is a bad year for totalitarian regimes instead.

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Can we dare to dream that this is true?

    “Watch this video. Dozens of others like it from different towns & cities. It's UNBELIEVABLE what's happening in Iran.
    ‎One conclusion from these videos: it's not that Iran's regime "will fall". It's that Iran's regime *is falling*.
    ‎⁦‪#IranRevolution‬⁩”

    https://twitter.com/kshahrooz/status/1578929480038379521?s=46&t=DpEipnxbsKllHKcJyCjtJw

    Not yet. Hundreds have been arrested, beaten and tortured as a result of these protests. The protestors I have seen have been mainly young women, often school kids. That would cause us a lot of angst, the Guidance patrol in Iran rather less so.
    The bravery of these young women is phenomenal. Teenage girls standing up to armed thugs. Moving

    I pray they succeed. In a time of darkness, the ending of this vile regime would be a marvellous light
    I won't hold my breath at this being the long-justified end for this vile regime, there's been false dawns before.

    But having said that, the last few years people have seemed to be increasingly down on democracy. With the failure of the Russian invasion of Ukraine which will likely see Putin fall too, and this movement in Russia, it could be that 2022 is a bad year for totalitarian regimes instead.
    Perhaps a paradoxical upside to the horrors of recent years is that it has made people more audacious, or even just more desperate

    If life is really really shit you might as well go out and attack a horrible Islamist regime because life can’t actually get much shittier. And you might just win

    Go Iran!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    alednam said:

    I suppose Liz Truss might get wind of the fact that there is precedent for a Kind to dissolve Parliament, when he recognizes that “there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House of Commons is not the opinion of the electors”.

    Is there ?
    I must have missed this. Can you point out whence this is written or previously practiced ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    alednam said:

    I suppose Liz Truss might get wind of the fact that there is precedent for a Kind to dissolve Parliament, when he recognizes that “there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House of Commons is not the opinion of the electors”.

    Was that Charles I or Cromwell?

    Either way there's other precedents involved too.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    JohnO said:

    alednam said:

    I suppose Liz Truss might get wind of the fact that there is precedent for a Kind to dissolve Parliament, when he recognizes that “there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House of Commons is not the opinion of the electors”.

    What is this precedent? Can't think of anything close since the advent of democracy, and probably long before that too.
    The Tories should just be thankful that Parliament is no longer dissolved upon the demise of the Crown, or they'd already have vanished down the toilet.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926
    FF43 said:

    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    Think King Charles would be wise not to approve this move. The MPs concerned are at liberty to withdraw their acceptance of peerages on this round and trust Truss to renominate them for peerages at a later date.

    Isn't it a Morton's Fork, though?

    KC obeys what Ms T apparently proposes = political intervention
    KC refuses what Ms T ditto = political intervention
    KC does what the PM suggests is not a political intervention, is it?

    Opponents of the PM frequently seem to want the monarch to intervene to object to what the PM is doing, like with prorogation of Parliament and Boris. That's not the monarch's place to do.

    If the monarch wants to object to what the PM is doing, they should abdicate and seek elected office themselves.
    The King says, "You are asking me to approve a dodgy constitutional manoeuvre. I don't approve it." If Truss finds a way to go ahead anyway, that's not his problem.

    If he goes ahead with this, he sets up problems for when Starmer, probably, becomes PM in 2024 and may choose to override the arrangement.
    I mean, this dodgy constitutional manoeuvre isn't even for Tory partisan advantage. It's because the six would-be peers don't trust Truss' word for some reason, that she would make them peers on a later round.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    split it by THC content?

    It is all bollocks though. If we can't prevent cocaine getting from South America to here how on earth are we expected to put a lid on something growable here? You might say: Lock the whole cdountry down like a high security prison, but high security prisons are awash with drugs.

    Energy crisis is going to push up the prices, mind.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    edited October 9
    Not sure how recent this is but I have checked via Google Maps and these cars are definitely on Crimea heading towards the Kerch Bridge. Surprised the Russians are letting anyone off tbh.

    image
    Vehicles wait to cross the Crimean bridge near Kerch a day after a bridge was hit by a blast. (Photo by Anna KARPENKO / AFP) (Photo by ANNA KARPENKO/AFP via Getty Images) Photograph: Anna Karpenko/AFP/Getty Images
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Why is convinced libertarian Truss letting her Home Secretary float such daft ideas?

    If you want to crush the economy because ideology, you kind of have to be consistent.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 636
    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Which itself ought to be a bizarre statement, but here we are. At the absolute bottom of the barrel. Beyond it in fact. We've dug through the bottom of the barrel, tunnelled through the planet to find the bottom of some counterpart cracker barrel on the antipode.

    Actively dangerous.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Alan Johnson was the last decent HS.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    edited October 9
    1996: Major steps up war on drugs

    https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/6205755.major-steps-up-war-on-drugs/

    Mr Major pledged no let up in the drive to stamp out the menace: "Twelve months ago I announced a new government drive against drugs - vigorous law enforcement, accessible treatment and a new emphasis on education and prevention.

    "Today I am announcing further measures to increase the momentum in the fight against drugs.

    "The government will continue to give a clear lead against one of the great menaces of our age."
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    The header says:
    as the country chooses to get rid of our unelected rulers.
    The hereditary Royal Family give no impression of ruling over me in any way that impacts my life or choices.
    They are an impotent quaint but harmless throwback to times gone by, a nod to history and the roots of our nation.
    Useful for ceremonies and set pieces welcoming overseas dignitaries and as figureheads for charities.
    Rule over me? No, regardless of the anthem and its words.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    Sorry, but everybody 3+ miles from a city centre says "Fuck off!"

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    Sorry, but everybody 3+ miles from a city centre says "Fuck off!"

    Yes, but that is nobody once the housebuilding deficit has been addressed.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Yes, the success of prohibition over the last 50 years is unarguably fail, fail fail, to plagerise a technique.
    Not just cannabis all drugs.
    Legalise. Tax. Distribution controls. Quality checks. Crime reduction. Free up Police time. Register of users for hard drugs. Addiction clinics and programs. Massive dissincentives for black market drugs.legalise and regulate prostitution while you are at it.
  • thebatterthebatter Posts: 4
    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    philiph said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Yes, the success of prohibition over the last 50 years is unarguably fail, fail fail, to plagerise a technique.
    Not just cannabis all drugs.
    Legalise. Tax. Distribution controls. Quality checks. Crime reduction. Free up Police time. Register of users for hard drugs. Addiction clinics and programs. Massive dissincentives for black market drugs.legalise and regulate prostitution while you are at it.
    Do you regard Singapore's policy as a failure?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    Sorry, but everybody 3+ miles from a city centre says "Fuck off!"

    I live 5+ miles from Newcastle city centre. I'd commute by bus if they weren't so shit. Unfortunately they are shit. And expensive.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591
    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Cocaine might be everywhere but you don't inhale it walking down the street, so it's not such a visible symbol of the law being flouted.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Cocaine might be everywhere but you don't inhale it walking down the street, so it's not such a visible symbol of the law being flouted.
    The utter contempt shown for the law on weed is almost as blatant as the utter contempt shown for the law on electric scooters. Westminster needs to get its head out of its ass.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Cocaine might be everywhere but you don't inhale it walking down the street, so it's not such a visible symbol of the law being flouted.
    Visible? Smellable, surely...
  • thebatterthebatter Posts: 4

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Doesnt mean having cocaine everywhere is a good thing. Seems like half the cabinets on cocaine and look how they perform
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited October 9
    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    This has got me thinking (OK, it's a Sunday). When was the last by-election caused by an MP - let alone 9 - being elevated to the Lords? Could it be as far back as the 1950s when a son of an heritatary peer automatically succeeded to the title prior to the Disclaimer Act in 1963?

    Ribble Valley in 1990/91 when David Waddington went to the Lords?
    Yes, that counts and of course the Tories lost the seat. Any advance?
    Nope. Prior to that was 1983 and Willie Whitelaw.
    So just three in the last 60 or so years and Johnson wants nine in one go. Bonkers and of course Truss should refuse the lot of 'em.
    Bristol SE 1961 on the reluctant elevation of Tony Benn.
    Yep, so we're now up to four.
    George Robertson 1999.

    Can't think of any multiple examples, certainly not since the 1970s.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    Sorry, but everybody 3+ miles from a city centre says "Fuck off!"

    I live 5+ miles from Newcastle city centre. I'd commute by bus if they weren't so shit. Unfortunately they are shit. And expensive.
    There was an experiment in Germany where they capped public transport costs in response to the energy crisis. As I understand it, it did have a useful effect in moving people out of cars onto public transport, but it also put a lot of strain on transportation systems that weren't designed to cope. The FDP, one of the government coalition parties, put a stop to it because they don't approve of government subsidies

    I think we could get a workable system in the suburbs where a high quality cheap or free public transport substitutes for car use.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,784

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Cockaigne for you.
    O the buzzing of the bees …

  • thebatterthebatter Posts: 4

    philiph said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Yes, the success of prohibition over the last 50 years is unarguably fail, fail fail, to plagerise a technique.
    Not just cannabis all drugs.
    Legalise. Tax. Distribution controls. Quality checks. Crime reduction. Free up Police time. Register of users for hard drugs. Addiction clinics and programs. Massive dissincentives for black market drugs.legalise and regulate prostitution while you are at it.
    Do you regard Singapore's policy as a failure?
    There are 2 ways we go with drugs
    1. Decriminalise and regulate
    2. The singapore model of death penalty for drug traffickers
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926
    Carnyx said:

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Cocaine might be everywhere but you don't inhale it walking down the street, so it's not such a visible symbol of the law being flouted.
    Visible? Smellable, surely...
    I really dislike the smell of marijuana.

    Not a useful contribution to the drugs liberalisation debate, I know.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 784
    edited October 9
    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    It's not difficult to obtain regardless of classification. I live 10 mins walk from the main concentration of student houses around here and there's constantly business cards advertising "Party Supplies 24/7" being handed out from people on bikes and even in cars.

    This will do nothing but waste police time.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    Abject moral squalor. Twenty brave Iranian cops take turns to beat a kid

    "Warning: Disturbing

    Security forces violently attacking a youth in Mashhad. Oct 8. #IranProtests2022 #MahsaAmini #Khamenei
    #مهسا_امینی
    #سارینا_اسماعیل_زاده"

    https://twitter.com/ICHRI/status/1579104211165675520?s=20&t=AYBvQLQ-BcAAXC9DjKFdBg

    When you are this degraded, the end - one hopes - cannot be far away
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,784
    FF43 said:

    Carnyx said:

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Cocaine might be everywhere but you don't inhale it walking down the street, so it's not such a visible symbol of the law being flouted.
    Visible? Smellable, surely...
    I really dislike the smell of marijuana.

    Not a useful contribution to the drugs liberalisation debate, I know.
    But a benefit of anosmia.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    Sorry, but everybody 3+ miles from a city centre says "Fuck off!"

    Yes, but that is nobody once the housebuilding deficit has been addressed.
    I shall be under the sod before either of these things happen, so not going to get too agitated...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    edited October 9
    "Here's why I think there's now a one-in-six chance of an imminent global #NuclearWar, and why I appreciate
    @elonmusk
    and others urging de-escalation, which is IMHO in the national security interest of all nations:"

    https://lesswrong.com/posts/Dod9AWz8Rp4Svdpof/why-i-think-there-s-a-one-in-six-chance-of-an-imminent

    https://twitter.com/tegmark/status/1578911288859987968?s=20&t=AYBvQLQ-BcAAXC9DjKFdBg
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697

    philiph said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Yes, the success of prohibition over the last 50 years is unarguably fail, fail fail, to plagerise a technique.
    Not just cannabis all drugs.
    Legalise. Tax. Distribution controls. Quality checks. Crime reduction. Free up Police time. Register of users for hard drugs. Addiction clinics and programs. Massive dissincentives for black market drugs.legalise and regulate prostitution while you are at it.
    Do you regard Singapore's policy as a failure?
    It may work in yhe social and legislative structure of Singapore.
    That is not comparable or applicable to UK. In the UK where so many freedoms are rights Singaporesregulations would be unworkable.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,154
    thebatter said:

    philiph said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Yes, the success of prohibition over the last 50 years is unarguably fail, fail fail, to plagerise a technique.
    Not just cannabis all drugs.
    Legalise. Tax. Distribution controls. Quality checks. Crime reduction. Free up Police time. Register of users for hard drugs. Addiction clinics and programs. Massive dissincentives for black market drugs.legalise and regulate prostitution while you are at it.
    Do you regard Singapore's policy as a failure?
    There are 2 ways we go with drugs
    1. Decriminalise and regulate
    2. The singapore model of death penalty for drug traffickers
    the status quo now probably works better than either of the above two - certainly with Class A drugs. It woudl be bizarre for a government to relax use of hard drugs when tobacco is being pushed close to a ban (look at NZ etc) and do we really want to have home grown draconian sentences (Thailand ,singapore china style) for low key drug supplying?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    thebatter said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    I dont see how reclassification to class A will be a disaster for people. Not being able to smoke cannabis quite as easily is inconvenient not a disaster
    Cocaine is literally everywhere in major cities and out of touch old tories are getting their knickers in a twist over weed, which is more than everywhere.

    Massively out of touch.
    Who is massively out of touch? Major cities rarely vote Tory.

    Outside of them,there is plenty of political consternation about County Lines.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.

    You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.

    What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.

    Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
    I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.

    So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
    The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich

    It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus

    It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present

    However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult

    Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.

    For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.

    Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.

    Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.

    There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.

    I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.

    The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
    Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.

    You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.

    For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.

    You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
    Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
    BRACE!
    Horse. Cart.

    Nosebag.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Leon said:

    Abject moral squalor. Twenty brave Iranian cops take turns to beat a kid

    "Warning: Disturbing

    Security forces violently attacking a youth in Mashhad. Oct 8. #IranProtests2022 #MahsaAmini #Khamenei
    #مهسا_امینی
    #سارینا_اسماعیل_زاده"

    https://twitter.com/ICHRI/status/1579104211165675520?s=20&t=AYBvQLQ-BcAAXC9DjKFdBg

    When you are this degraded, the end - one hopes - cannot be far away

    they've been this degraded for over 40 years and unfortunately the bastards are still in power.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    A 1 in 6 chance that human civilisation is about to be extinguished

    "Many people have asked me what I think the odds are of an imminent major US-Russia nuclear war. My current estimate is about the same as losing in Russian roulette: one in six. The goal of this post is to explain how I arrived at this estimate. Please forgive its cold and analytic nature despite the emotionally charged topic; I'm trying not to be biased by hopes, fears or wishful thinking. "

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Dod9AWz8Rp4Svdpof/why-i-think-there-s-a-one-in-six-chance-of-an-imminent
  • thebatterthebatter Posts: 4
    Leon said:

    "Here's why I think there's now a one-in-six chance of an imminent global #NuclearWar, and why I appreciate
    @elonmusk
    and others urging de-escalation, which is IMHO in the national security interest of all nations:"

    https://lesswrong.com/posts/Dod9AWz8Rp4Svdpof/why-i-think-there-s-a-one-in-six-chance-of-an-imminent

    https://twitter.com/tegmark/status/1578911288859987968?s=20&t=AYBvQLQ-BcAAXC9DjKFdBg

    Agreed give Putin an off ramp. It will be messy but beats nuclear war
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,233
    Leon said:

    A 1 in 6 chance that human civilisation is about to be extinguished

    "Many people have asked me what I think the odds are of an imminent major US-Russia nuclear war. My current estimate is about the same as losing in Russian roulette: one in six. The goal of this post is to explain how I arrived at this estimate. Please forgive its cold and analytic nature despite the emotionally charged topic; I'm trying not to be biased by hopes, fears or wishful thinking. "

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Dod9AWz8Rp4Svdpof/why-i-think-there-s-a-one-in-six-chance-of-an-imminent

    If it happens so be it. Nothing we can do about it. Don’t worry and enjoy what time is left.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,784
    Leon said:

    A 1 in 6 chance that human civilisation is about to be extinguished

    "Many people have asked me what I think the odds are of an imminent major US-Russia nuclear war. My current estimate is about the same as losing in Russian roulette: one in six. The goal of this post is to explain how I arrived at this estimate. Please forgive its cold and analytic nature despite the emotionally charged topic; I'm trying not to be biased by hopes, fears or wishful thinking. "

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Dod9AWz8Rp4Svdpof/why-i-think-there-s-a-one-in-six-chance-of-an-imminent

    Roll of a die. Seems apt.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    thebatter said:

    philiph said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suella Braverman is a moron. We should be looking to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs and ensure consumers are buying from legitimate untainted sources. Reclassification to class A will be a disaster for millions of ordinary people.

    Bring back Priti Patel please.

    Yes, the success of prohibition over the last 50 years is unarguably fail, fail fail, to plagerise a technique.
    Not just cannabis all drugs.
    Legalise. Tax. Distribution controls. Quality checks. Crime reduction. Free up Police time. Register of users for hard drugs. Addiction clinics and programs. Massive dissincentives for black market drugs.legalise and regulate prostitution while you are at it.
    Do you regard Singapore's policy as a failure?
    There are 2 ways we go with drugs
    1. Decriminalise and regulate
    2. The singapore model of death penalty for drug traffickers
    Well, Suella is your gal for 2. The stars are aligning.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 9
    Absurd article by TSE. Every PM announces a list of peers after they resign and it is up to the Monarch to appoint them not the next PM. Far from damaging the monarchy all Truss annoying Boris would do is shift him and his supporters to the Sunak camp which via Shapps and Gove is already plotting to remove the PM. If Dorries has her peerage rejected, despite being a Truss supporter from the outset, that would shift her too to the rebels camp.

    On the matter of proroguation of Parliament, personally I don't think King Charles would have agreed to it unlike his mother. While he knows he is a constitutional monarch he also knows he can use his role to uphold the constitution and as the Supreme Court confirmed he would have been right on that
This discussion has been closed.