The reception of CPTPP accession becoming a real thing is perhaps the biggest wildcard in British politics at the moment. It could potentially change the narrative on our future trajectory and will also force Starmer to be more explicit about where he stands on Brexit.
A sustainable deal with the EU = trusted by other countries to do deals. Boris preferred to be a semi-EU country to have a blame target. It's mature politics but will involve some cost of foregone demagoguery down the road. As for CPTPP it's a good symbol but a fraction of UK merchandise trade, in part because the biggest countries have their own trade deals and shipping times are so long, and no wishing will move GB to the south seas.
Half of UK exports are services and this share is growing. Also, services are an area where the UK has a trade surplus, unlike goods, so this plays to out advantage. Two thirds of service exports go outside the EU and are not affected by long shipping times.
Something like two thirds of middle class consumers will be in the Indo-Pacific by 2030, while the EU population is going to start dropping. The CPTPP is also likely to expand over time, and will set the norms for international trade, given it strikes a very good balance between rich and poor countries.
These are mostly true albeit some are misleading - China and India will have the lion's share of that middle class, not CPTPP members like New Zealand or Brunei. Services are always the poor relation in trade deals, for the very good reason that governments use services regulation as a social policy tool. Even the EU, with its single market and common laws, has no effective cross-border markets in many high-value services like retail finance. My impression of CPTPP is that the services trade requirements were dialled down after the USA exited, allowing Canada to protect the French language and so forth.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
If all parties agree on a policy, can you really say there's consent for it?
We know the figure for goods is partly due to exporting gas to the continent, but why the big services number?
A lot looks to be bounce back from Covid. If we run the trend from 2017 (2016 being an oddity because it shrank from 2015) then growth in exports has been around 5% per year. Extrapolate that from 2019 to 2022 and you get 810bn.
5% growth is broadly consistent with non inflation-adjusted GDP growth.
One reason we see different stars for UK-EU trade is FX. These numbers are in Sterling but EU countries’ imports from UK are often shown in Euros, where the weakening of Sterling after the vote reduces the value.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
The Cambridge protest at the weekend was quite illuminating. The chap with his 100 year old business complaining that it was going to cost 12k a year to have his deliveries made to him. It didn't even seem to *occur* to him that having his business located inside the zone was not a sustainable option and that he would be better off out of the City Centre; unlike the situation in 1900.
A lot of the rants were of the form "it's my god given right as an Englishman to carry on doing things exactly as we always have done" and people were definitely getting very angry about it.
Would be good to know for betting purposes whether 27 lead or 14 lead is accurate.
If its the former hard to see even SKS blow that (although May did). If its 14 its all to play for and the NOM is of interest.
Suspect currently its high teens or low 20s but I find it inconceivable come a GE that there wont be a lot of shy Tories return, whether its enough to stop SKS time will tell.
Ideally Corbyn forms a Party and gives Socialists someone to vote for if so I reckon enough would vote for it to split the Lab vote and although it might only end up with 1 seat might foil SKS4PM
The UK will NEVER elect a Corbynite government, you never learn. Labour's most disastrous performances have been when the left grabbed the leadership under Foot and Corbyn and when Benn and Hatton were in their pomp. There has always been a far-left option at GE's and it has always failed miserably.
If you get your political jollies by letting the Tories in so be it but you are in a tiny minority on the left. Personally I would love to see Corbyn start his own party because it would perform disastrously. The thought of him dithering over whether to support Ukraine would even have me voting for Sunak in a nano-second.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points and facts from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
The Cambridge protest at the weekend was quite illuminating. The chap with his 100 year old business complaining that it was going to cost 12k a year to have his deliveries made to him. It didn't even seem to *occur* to him that having his business located inside the zone was not a sustainable option and that he would be better off out of the City Centre; unlike the situation in 1900.
A lot of the rants were of the form "it's my god given right as an Englishman to carry on doing things exactly as we always have done" and people were definitely getting very angry about it.
Mackays is on the ring road. True, it is now surrounded by new-build flats, as Cambridge expands. But it's not really city centre. They did try to move a few years ago, but were victims of a massive fraud, if I remember correctly.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
If all parties agree on a policy, can you really say there's consent for it?
Of course, if every democratically elected politician agrees about something, it must ipso facto be a conspiracy.
The reception of CPTPP accession becoming a real thing is perhaps the biggest wildcard in British politics at the moment. It could potentially change the narrative on our future trajectory and will also force Starmer to be more explicit about where he stands on Brexit.
A sustainable deal with the EU = trusted by other countries to do deals. Boris preferred to be a semi-EU country to have a blame target. It's mature politics but will involve some cost of foregone demagoguery down the road. As for CPTPP it's a good symbol but a fraction of UK merchandise trade, in part because the biggest countries have their own trade deals and shipping times are so long, and no wishing will move GB to the south seas.
Half of UK exports are services and this share is growing. Also, services are an area where the UK has a trade surplus, unlike goods, so this plays to out advantage. Two thirds of service exports go outside the EU and are not affected by long shipping times.
Something like two thirds of middle class consumers will be in the Indo-Pacific by 2030, while the EU population is going to start dropping. The CPTPP is also likely to expand over time, and will set the norms for international trade, given it strikes a very good balance between rich and poor countries.
These are mostly true albeit some are misleading - China and India will have the lion's share of that middle class, not CPTPP members like New Zealand or Brunei. Services are always the poor relation in trade deals, for the very good reason that governments use services regulation as a social policy tool. Even the EU, with its single market and common laws, has no effective cross-border markets in many high-value services like retail finance. My impression of CPTPP is that the services trade requirements were dialled down after the USA exited, allowing Canada to protect the French language and so forth.
Somewhat cherry picking of CPTPP members there. Australia, Japan and Singapore are not unimportant economies. Deeper access into these places will bring entry points into the whole region's trade. And it applies elsewhere too: the CPTPP has members on four continents.
The CPTPP brings substantial liberalization into the service trade, particularly around digital products. The main changes after the US left were strengthened environmental and labor protections, plus less aggressive IP regulations.
Would be good to know for betting purposes whether 27 lead or 14 lead is accurate.
If its the former hard to see even SKS blow that (although May did). If its 14 its all to play for and the NOM is of interest.
Suspect currently its high teens or low 20s but I find it inconceivable come a GE that there wont be a lot of shy Tories return, whether its enough to stop SKS time will tell.
Ideally Corbyn forms a Party and gives Socialists someone to vote for if so I reckon enough would vote for it to split the Lab vote and although it might only end up with 1 seat might foil SKS4PM
The UK will NEVER elect a Corbynite government, you never learn. Labour's most disastrous performances have been when the left grabbed the leadership under Foot and Corbyn and when Benn and Hatton were in their pomp. There has always been a far-left option at GE's and it has always failed miserably.
If you get your political jollies by letting the Tories in so be it but you are in a tiny minority on the left. Personally I would love to see Corbyn start his own party because it would perform disastrously. The thought of him dithering over whether to support Ukraine would even have me voting for
Sunak in a nano-second.
Dream scenario is that Luciana is PPC for Islington North and beats Corbyn running as Real Socialist Labour Alternative People’s Front or some such
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
I can't help with the family dispute.
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement? Or keep stumm.
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
A different take on the Russia incursion. The ‘Russian Volunteer Corps’ (RDK), the combat unit on the 🇺🇦 side who claims to have made an incursion into Bryansk 🇷🇺 (i.e., likely not a 'false flag'), are led by a figure well known to myself and those who follow the transnational far right: Denis Kapustin (aka Nikitin) https://mobile.twitter.com/ColborneMichael/status/1631290704625319939
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
The Cambridge protest at the weekend was quite illuminating. The chap with his 100 year old business complaining that it was going to cost 12k a year to have his deliveries made to him. It didn't even seem to *occur* to him that having his business located inside the zone was not a sustainable option and that he would be better off out of the City Centre; unlike the situation in 1900.
A lot of the rants were of the form "it's my god given right as an Englishman to carry on doing things exactly as we always have done" and people were definitely getting very angry about it.
Mackays is on the ring road. True, it is now surrounded by new-build flats, as Cambridge expands. But it's not really city centre. They did try to move a few years ago, but were victims of a massive fraud, if I remember correctly.
This is exactly what I mean - the environment changes; and what was perfectly reasonable in the past isn't today; through no fault of your own. But they're on East Road aren't they? And that has been rammed for at least 20 years!
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I am no Tory and even less so a Hancock fan, but I’m finding the PB hot takes that somehow this is all Hancock’s fault and “he only has himself to blame” very hard to swallow.
Hancock is guilty of being rather credulous and somewhat dim - which will come as news to precisely nobody.
In contrast, the odious Oakeshott has broken client confidentiality (both implicit and explicit) and breached - yet again - the golden rule of her trade: never reveal your sources.
She is an utter disgrace to her profession and deserves never to work as a journalist again.
The mere fact she is a very famous journalist and gets top drawer gigs, doesn’t prove she has made herself to top of her business in your opinion? You sure you know how this trade works? A journalist can only be any good if you like them?
You seem unable to actually understand what others are saying. He didn't say she was unable to make it to the top. He said she was odious and a disgrace. Moral reprobates can often get to the top. See Donald Trump.
I'm starting to wonder whether you actually are Isabel Oakeshott, because I can't think who else would defend her.
There’s no need to result to name calling, Willy.
You need to take a second look, Anabob made clear, as a slithering untrustworthy odious disgrace backstabbing snake means she can’t simultaneously be a top journalist. And whilst you are catching up on things, which you are slow to do, my previous post suggested Izzy could be
tried for treason and jailed if her biggest scoop - destroying a top British Diplomat - came to her from Putin.
I did no such thing. You are talking scribble again, I assume vodka hour came early today? It’s thirsty Thursday after all.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
I can't help with the family dispute.
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement? Or keep stumm.
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
Air pollution - improved standards of vehicles and the move away from diesel vehicles in recent years has improved air quality already. That's why places without these policies are meeting targets, without implementing these policies.
So keep doing what we're doing, raise standards for new vehicles, and old vehicles get worn out and replaced.
If there are a few roads where particulates are above the legal requirement, why not design policies for those roads, rather than implement zones over the entire city or worse multiple towns as well as a city like Greater Manchester wanted to do?
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
I can't help with the family dispute.
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement? Or keep stumm.
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
You seem to think I am disputing the LTN policy. I agree with it. As regards the data from London, it might be nice to see a proper source rather than a tweet.
I am just trying to understand the electoral consequences if the policy pisses off a section of the Labour vote in Littlemore, Oxford -- which is where @El_Capitano pointed to a tricky Labour defence tonight.
So... Greta Thurnberg. Apparently the climate emergency is so vast that we must all change the way we live, at a vast cost to economies and people's welfare.
Yet wind turbines cannot be built on the land of indigenous peoples in Norway, for ... reasons.
“Indigenous rights, human rights, must go hand-in-hand with climate protection and climate action. That can’t happen at the expense of some people,” Thunberg told Reuters on Monday."
Why do only the rights of indigenous people matter? Why should any of us suffer by progressing green energy faster than the economy can sustain?
(Dons flameproof coat)
You feel she's insufficiently fanatical? The consensus view among most people concerned about climate change is that we do need to take substantial action including lifestyle changes, but not that absolutely no other considerations can be made. We can argue about whether indigenous rights are important (I'm not much bothered about them, but Scandinavians do tend to feel differently), but it doesn't invalidate her position to concede the need for some exceptions.
Or Welsh Labour's stupid cancellation of the entire road building program.
I'm not arguing against work to prevent climate change; just that we have to pick a pace that doesn't help send people into food and other types of poverty, and allows us to grow and improve as a country and society.
It's probably better to pick a pace that actually avoids disastrous climate change. You don't win a war by dedicating only enough resources that still allow you to "grow and improve as a country and society"; you dedicate enough resources to win it, even if that means some hardship in the short term.
Good. So when people complain about not being able to afford energy bills, or food (growing and transporting food requires energy), you'll accept that these policies have a detrimental effect? Or will it all be the government's fault?
I am not against trying to combat climate change. It's just that we need to balance that with the needs of the people.
Obviously we need to combat climate change in a way that mitigates hardship as far as possible, but in the end the necessary pace needs to be dictated by the desired result rather than the need to avoid inconvenience. Otherwise our epitaph may be, "Sorry we messed up the world kids, but it turned out there was no way that we could stop it without compromising our standard of living." That's not really a good look.
If the world economy grows at ~3.5% per annum, it doubles in size approximately every twenty years. The unpleasant truth is that if we want to tackle climate change in a meaningful way, we need to pursue degrowth, both of the economy, and of the global population. Not only does that mean an inevitable decline in living standards, it also creates a demographic problem for the future - too many old people and not enough bum wipers, essentially.
But moreover, it's also a thoroughly western-centric attitude that says "hey, we got rich burning dead dinosaurs, now, rest of the world, you've got to accept declining living standards even though you never attained western standards of wealth and prosperity". And most of the developing world simply is not going to accept that.
To be honest, the developed world isn't going to accept declining living standards, either. People in democracies aren't going to vote for policies that make them worse off, no matter how well intended.
That leaves technological advancement as our sole route out of this, whether that be carbon capture, fusion technology, even weather control (I know, I stray into the realms of science fiction here). But in any climate change scenario you need to start from the base case that people will not accept declining living standards without voting out / overthrowing their governments, and accept that developing nations will not accept de-growth foisted on them by western powers.
AI is going to make all of this irrelevant in good and bad ways. You’re worrying about the rural economy on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution
AI as we currently have it, LLMs and ChatGPT, won't make our economy greener - the simple fact is that if the world economy doubles in size every 20 years or so, the amount of resources we consume becomes much bigger. AI isn't gonna stop the developing world wanting cars, fast food and air conditioning. Sure, maybe AGI will come along in the next few years and it will be all powerful and all knowing and it will teach us fusion technology and the like in minutes. But belief in the singularity is a little bit of hand waving and faith in an AI god.
Many of the most important technological advancements of the 20th century - the production line, the automobile, etc, did not reduce our impact on the enivronment. Rather, thay made it orders of magnitude worse. Of course, there are some technologies - nuclear power etc - that reduce our impact on the environment. But to suggest that more technology = less environmental impact as the default state simply isn't true...
It's not a default - but clearly technology, and in particular cheap power from renewables, enables all kinds of possibilities. Energy production is at the root of the climate change problem, and will also determine if and how it is solved.
I don't disagree with your point that massive lifestyle changes will be necessary. I just don't believe that all of them are necessarily going to be negative ones.
Look at the academic literature and you'll see an emerging consensus among the intelligentsia for hair shirts and degrowth. I'm not saying that's right, but I am saying that's where you can see a consensus is emerging.
The idea of rationing petrol, long haul flights, even meat consumption, would have been laughed out of the room even a decade ago. Now, it's an idea that's being taken seriously in academia.
Personally, I think such ideas are borne out of an institutional hatred towards capitalism and an inherent bias against consumption as being bourgeois and decadent. But that doesn't mean these ideas will not be taken very, very seriously by higher ups.
While there are some mitigations, e.g. clean power, circular economy, EVs etc, the fact is the vast majority of the developing world wants a western-style lifestyle and that will necessitate orders of magnitude more consumption in the next 50 years or so.
It's my belief that development of green technologies will not substantially mitigate the massive increase in consumption in developing economies. Then again, nor will wearing hair shirts and reducing our own consumption in the west make a significant impact. This is why, earlier in the thread, I said I think we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The bottom line is that there isn't a hope in hell of selling "you need to be worse off to fight global warmingclimate change the climate emergency" to the public. The key has always been to find measures that are good for the environment but also have benefits to people and sell those benefits.
The idea that future adversity should only be countered by measures that also provide current benefits is completely illogical.
Welcome to human nature.
It's not human nature at all. Most people are prepared to undergo short-term discomfort in exchange for long term benefits for themselves or their children. It's just (?) a matter of selling it properly. Blood, sweat and tears won WW2.
Yeah, because it was easy to sell "we're fighting Hitler, an evil man who wants to kill us".
Climate change is a less immediate but just as real a threat as Hitler was. It's the lack of immediacy that makes selling the need for possibly unpopular measures to counter it difficult, but they are no less necessary.
Here's the thing. Your immense and superior intellect notwithstanding, why do you think it is that the majority (it seems) of people don't share the urgency of your quest to undergo discomfort, or de-grow (yuk)?
People are on the whole well-informed and have all the available facts to hand and have evidently decided that they don't want to do as you say they should.
I mean it is a cheap and hackneyed jibe to point out your fossil fuel usage in posting green comments on an internet chatroom but you could at least set an example by not doing so. Or are you someone (thinking Emma Thompson here) who believes their mission is too important not to engage in the very activities you are counselling against?
I wouldn't say people on the whole are well informed about climate change.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
The surprise would be if it wasn't this way. (And I take the view that this deal is worth doing.)
When was the last government announcement where the details weren't less attractive than the Day One hype?
None of the details in the links have shown anything more than minor quibbles in the details. The brake won't affect insignificant rule changes? Some 3% of EU law will remain? Please.
This is at least one US style debate we're currently spared in Parliament.
Really strange GOP reaction to House Joint Resolution No. 34 which would clear witchcraft convictions from the Connecticut Witch Trials. Rep. Dubitsky (R) asked Beverly Khan if she had any evidence of innocence... does he think witches are real?* https://mobile.twitter.com/VincentDGabriel/status/1630994249658368008
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
He really needs to sort out the public sector strikes, at least the ones where the public are sympathetic to the strikers, as well. This will also help his ratings.
He needs inflation down a few points though before he settles...
Giving 7% when inflation is 6% and falling would be helpful.
Not an easy circle to square when food inflation is running at what? 17%.
Both the posts on this thread I am responding to seem to be relying on smoke and mirrors to deliver another Conservative Government. Here's a thought, why don't you all try something deserving of a victory, something that actually enhances the average Joe's life? No, ok, I thought not, smoke, mirrors and negativity it is.
What has Labour got to offer, if not smoke and mirrors and negativity?
On the doorsteps, there's certainly no great love for this Government. But if I were Labour, I'd be worried about the follow up you often hear: "Not that the other lot has got any clue either...."
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
At an election, yes.
Unless ACTA was a topic at the election, it didn't do it.
The problem with bodies having powers and elections but very low turnout is that a few obsessives can dominate the election results due to the lack of proper scrutiny.
Like NUS elections where the elected representatives care more about Palestine than Tuition Fees or other student-issues, because most students never voted. Or local Labour Party bodies where the elected people care more about *checks notes* Palestine, than issues affecting the poor here. Or Council Elections where NIMBYs get a lot of loving, but people struggling to get a property don't get a look in.
The EP operates the same way, there's no active demos or scrutiny at election times as most people don't take it seriously and even most of those who do vote treat it as an extension of their domestic politics.
In a big part that's the voters and non-voters own fault, but its a problem nonetheless.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
This is at least one US style debate we're currently spared in Parliament.
Really strange GOP reaction to House Joint Resolution No. 34 which would clear witchcraft convictions from the Connecticut Witch Trials. Rep. Dubitsky (R) asked Beverly Khan if she had any evidence of innocence... does he think witches are real?* https://mobile.twitter.com/VincentDGabriel/status/1630994249658368008
*I think some of them do.
They'd burn Nancy Pelosi at the stake, just on the off-chance....
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
European Parliament members were elected in 2009.
And did they have any difference in policy outlook compared to EP members that existed before that? i.e. what difference did that election make?
This is at least one US style debate we're currently spared in Parliament.
Really strange GOP reaction to House Joint Resolution No. 34 which would clear witchcraft convictions from the Connecticut Witch Trials. Rep. Dubitsky (R) asked Beverly Khan if she had any evidence of innocence... does he think witches are real?* https://mobile.twitter.com/VincentDGabriel/status/1630994249658368008
*I think some of them do.
They'd burn Nancy Pelosi at the stake, just on the off-chance....
I think you might be looking on the wrong side of the aisle for bonkers faith based incantations.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
European Parliament members were elected in 2009.
And did they have any difference in policy outlook compared to EP members that existed before that? i.e. what difference did that election make?
It put into office a few hundred members who voted to bin the treaty.
So I assume the argument being made that this NI deal was possible thanks to the great work of Boris is being dropped by his advocates?
I assume he's gotten wind if the DUP pretext for responding.
I'm not his advocate but no I stand by that.
I also stand by that Boris will be pissed off and annoyed that he isn't PM, that he's not the one getting credit for this, so will be petulant about it because he cares more about Boris than about Belfast.
This is at least one US style debate we're currently spared in Parliament.
Really strange GOP reaction to House Joint Resolution No. 34 which would clear witchcraft convictions from the Connecticut Witch Trials. Rep. Dubitsky (R) asked Beverly Khan if she had any evidence of innocence... does he think witches are real?* https://mobile.twitter.com/VincentDGabriel/status/1630994249658368008
*I think some of them do.
They'd burn Nancy Pelosi at the stake, just on the off-chance....
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
European Parliament members were elected in 2009.
And did they have any difference in policy outlook compared to EP members that existed before that? i.e. what difference did that election make?
It put into office a few hundred members who voted to bin the treaty.
Sure. But that wasn't my question. Did that cohort of members have a different view to the previous cohort of members? Did the EP change its policy as a result of the election?
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
At an election, yes.
Unless ACTA was a topic at the election, it didn't do it.
The problem with bodies having powers and elections but very low turnout is that a few obsessives can dominate the election results due to the lack of proper scrutiny.
Like NUS elections where the elected representatives care more about Palestine than Tuition Fees or other student-issues, because most students never voted. Or local Labour Party bodies where the elected people care more about *checks notes* Palestine, than issues affecting the poor here. Or Council Elections where NIMBYs get a lot of loving, but people struggling to get a property don't get a look in.
The EP operates the same way, there's no active demos or scrutiny at election times as most people don't take it seriously and even most of those who do vote treat it as an extension of their domestic politics.
In a big part that's the voters and non-voters own fault, but its a problem nonetheless.
At least you are getting to the point: elections must be ABOUT something, and if they're not, ipso facto no mandate, no democracy, no consent. This is the unspoken assumption WillG was not articulating. But it's not really got anything to do with "democracy", and it's entirely subjective. Some thought the 2019GE was "about" Brexit, others thought it was "about" Corbyn, others still thought it was "about" more money for the red wall. In reality, these are media and academic concepts; voters don't get to say their vote was "about" anything; the winner gets a majority and that's it.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
Won’t debate, or can’t debate - Willy the name caller. 🙂
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
You have to accept as fact, Sunak’s deal will not end EU law in Northern Ireland, nor ultimate oversight of EU judges in some circumstances. You have to accept as fact, insofar the border in Irish Sea is not there anymore, it’s instead replaced by extra focus on increased market surveillance North-South Ireland border - where everyone feared that focus being hence border in Irish Sea in first place. And this is the reason, as EU and UK increasingly diverge, the EU want the power Sunak is giving them to place new EU rules and law on NI, to smooth that border into the softest thing, and will get away with doing that because the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham. Sunak’s agreement gives EU all this, plus the ability to take 'appropriate remedial measures' whenever a new EU rule is actually thwarted. But as Sam Coates says, I quote “As a consequence, none of this makes it sound like the veto at the heart of the deal will be in regular use: is it really a lever to look at and admire rather than pull.”
If you make out I’m wrong, you are claiming our mainstream media are wrong, they are the ones explaining these facts to us.
What this deal is really all about is Sunak and EU agreed on smoothing the NI v to ROI border into the smoothest trading border ever - by mechanism of new EU law dropped on NI the politicians there can do nothing about. The DUP are being offered Second Class Sovereignty, and no control over new EU rules upon their country, on the claimed trade off that their uniquely being in two markets is the best place for business on earth - I’m not hailing this as fantastic or dreadful - I’m merely saying is this not the fact at the heart of this deal the DUP are now mulling over?
Yes or no?
I think I understand it all very well, to be honest with you.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
European Parliament members were elected in 2009.
And did they have any difference in policy outlook compared to EP members that existed before that? i.e. what difference did that election make?
It put into office a few hundred members who voted to bin the treaty.
You're not understanding the question, how was that a change from what came before?
I was a delegate at NUS Conference in 2003. My university seemed to be one of the only ones in the country whose delegates were apolitical. As a bloc we had a policy, agreed in the Union in advance, that the purpose of the Union was to serve students and not other policies. There were no Labour, Tory, or any other candidates elected, just candidates to serve student interests, on issues that affect students.
That do you think the first thing the NUS debated that year? Tuition Fees? Top-up fees? Student Finances? Student HMOs? No, it was the Iraq War, like the NUS had any say on the Iraq War. 🤦♂️
As a bloc I and my colleagues from our Uni all stood up and voted against a motion saying the NUS should oppose the Iraq War, we seemed to be the only ones in the room to do so, to which we got some filthy looks from many of the other delegates.
In most Student Unions across the country the elections are hijacked by left-wing people who want to further their left-wing national politics, rather than serving student interests on areas affecting students.
The same happens in the EP. European issues decided by the European Parliament are rarely debated at European Elections, instead they're a continuance of national politics by other means so obsessives and freaks like Farage and others get themselves elected to the European Parliament rather than scrutinising and debating issues the EP actually decides.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
I can't help with the family dispute.
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement? Or keep stumm.
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
You seem to think I am disputing the LTN policy. I agree with it. As regards the data from London, it might be nice to see a proper source rather than a tweet.
I am just trying to understand the electoral consequences if the policy pisses off a section of the Labour vote in Littlemore, Oxford -- which is where @El_Capitano pointed to a tricky Labour defence tonight.
FWIW I think Cambridge is doing a much better job of it than Oxford. (This is to be expected, as I'm sure @TheScreamingEagles will agree.)
Cambridge is doing a London-style congestion charge, which is a blunt instrument but equal in its impact and easy to understand. Along with this it's been putting in proper cycle infrastructure.
Oxford is doing LTN point closures (which are fine albeit controversial) but also a baffling series of traffic filters, which will have uncertain results, have a complex and uneven set of rules, and may actually worsen safety for pedestrians and cyclists in some places. It has put in basically zero safe cycling infrastructure, but rather just painted a lot of bicycle symbols on the existing roads.
As @oxfordsimon has posted, much of this is at the behest of one rather eccentric, elderly officer in the County Council who has pushed through his ideas and not really taken on board any feedback.
If Labour lose the by-election then I think the traffic filters are toast. To be honest I'm not convinced they will happen anyway: Network Rail announced the timetable for their planned works on the Botley Road rail bridge this morning, which will mean the traffic filters can't start before October 2024. All seats in the county are up for election in May 2025, so I can't see the rainbow coalition either bringing them in a few months before an election, or standing for re-election with them as a flagship policy.
If only Oxford would listen to Cambridge a bit more...
Even the EU, with its single market and common laws, has no effective cross-border markets in many high-value services like retail finance.
This is one reason why the economic the impact of being outside the EU is overhyped. It's a single market in name only.
Well, it has a VERY comprehensive single market in goods. You can pay Bulgarian wages to sell tins of honey into Sweden, and Stockholm can do nothing about it, except applying proportionate consumer protections; if they distort trade, Bulgarians can go to court. Services exports are different as a bunch of legal and regulatory barriers are recognised that protect local producers and hinder services trade, like in procurement, access to legal systems and legal recourse, and social policy.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, It's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
The one proposed for Newcastle was eagerly proposed by three councils partly for the finance.
I would be interested in some sensible analysis both pro and anti on this matter as most of the debate is either barking mad Eco Loons who think the world will end if people don't stop driving their 4x4's and barking mad right wingers who think this is all a WEF plot to install one world government.
The nearest I have found so far was from Sam Dumitriu.
Anyone who watches local/community social media accounts can see this is the new Brexit, at least in the way the changes to everyday life without any consent enrages people.
Cycling fanatics on twitter thinking they're winning by closing roads.
Meanwhile the average voter on facebook is furious.
I will take your word for that, and I do not mean that dismissively, as the only one I have seen on local sites is the arguments about the nonsensical change to access to the Tyne Bridge by Gateshead council and the ULEZ in Newcastle. Where I live in Durham we have not had such a scheme.
What I have noticed is that these are initiatives that go across party lines. Andy Street comes up on my Linkedin for some bizarre reason. He posted about one initiative they are looking at in Brum and reducing car ownership is very much a part of it even if the cars are low emission.
The cycling fanatics have a very well organised and well funded lobby that are happy to dismiss anyone who complains about these initiatives as pro pollution/climate change deniers.
I am a member of Cycling UK, I cycle rather alot myself, and am so purely for the liability insurance and they are always demanding local councils make changes to accomodate their demands.
As with the EU, it isn't necessarily the ever greater changes themselves, it's the continual lack of consent.
The covid LTN nonsense was a good example - lots were overturned in the following year, but from personal experience its nigh on impossible to overturn them now. Actively encouraging more congestion by closing off some direct routes seems to be the proposed solution to the problem of rush hour traffic. Council workers, rather than councillors, seem to be especially keen on the ideas around here....
LTNs were consulted extensively (check your local council website) - what we are getting now is blowback from groups who did not bother to take part in consultations, and are now upset. Much of the excitement imo shows how gullible some can be. I think that cutting off rat-running traffic is an excellent thing.
I don't recognise the "well-funded cycling lobby" trope - Cycling UK has barely 70k members, and British Cycling (the sporting body) is under 150k.
I'm a member of Cycling UK because, in addition to the insurance perhaps 90% of cyclists get get via Home Insurance policies or other means, it means I get access to specialist lawyers should I need them - and for reasonable damages civil action against self-righteous dopey drivers is usually required.
Middlesbrough or Sunderland installed facilities which used elements called "trip hazards" in National Standards, over which people tripped in the dark and went to hospital. Then cycles tracks were declared "dangerous" and the scheme stopped, rather than the Council admitting their own incompetence. That one deserves a Judicial Review, but may not get it.
I think we will see the same in RKBC - who are obstructive on roads they control. For example the High Street Ken cycle track was very quickly carrying a couple of thousand people on bikes each day, and was removed before a cost-benefit could be done. Now that lane is just another traffic jam or blocked by illegal parkers and taxi-drivers eating their sandwiches. I think we will see deaths there. RKBC is now a black hole in active travel provision in London.
In my area, I have Councillors active seeking actions to make the lives of people who walk or cycle more dangerous. But this is Ashfield and they have a lot to distract attention from.
Even the EU, with its single market and common laws, has no effective cross-border markets in many high-value services like retail finance.
This is one reason why the economic the impact of being outside the EU is overhyped. It's a single market in name only.
It's a great single market for goods and products.
And we used to do really well with services but a lot of that will have disappeared now UK Citizens can't fly round Europe weekly - granted it was a niche role but it did pay well...
LTNs were consulted extensively (check your local council website) - what we are getting now is blowback from groups who did not bother to take part in consultations, and are now upset.
LOL you're confirming what I said, but from the other vantage point.
A small number of organised obsessives with an agenda can push their agenda via "consultations" that the overwhelming majority of people are not aware are even happening.
Then when others find out about it, they get annoyed, and you call that "blowback by people who didn't bother".
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
European Parliament members were elected in 2009.
And did they have any difference in policy outlook compared to EP members that existed before that? i.e. what difference did that election make?
It put into office a few hundred members who voted to bin the treaty.
You're not understanding the question, how was that a change from what came before?
I was a delegate at NUS Conference in 2003. My university seemed to be one of the only ones in the country whose delegates were apolitical. As a bloc we had a policy, agreed in the Union in advance, that the purpose of the Union was to serve students and not other policies. There were no Labour, Tory, or any other candidates elected, just candidates to serve student interests, on issues that affect students.
That do you think the first thing the NUS debated that year? Tuition Fees? Top-up fees? Student Finances? Student HMOs? No, it was the Iraq War, like the NUS had any say on the Iraq War. 🤦♂️
As a bloc I and my colleagues from our Uni all stood up and voted against a motion saying the NUS should oppose the Iraq War, we seemed to be the only ones in the room to do so, to which we got some filthy looks from many of the other delegates.
In most Student Unions across the country the elections are hijacked by left-wing people who want to further their left-wing national politics, rather than serving student interests on areas affecting students.
The same happens in the EP. European issues decided by the European Parliament are rarely debated at European Elections, instead they're a continuance of national politics by other means so obsessives and freaks like Farage and others get themselves elected to the European Parliament rather than scrutinising and debating issues the EP actually decides.
I think your grievance about being in the minority on a NUS vote is not necessarily comparable to working out the competencies of the European Parliament. But the example shows that it's hard to say what an election is "about". I'm sure many students thought their vote was indeed about having a student movement that expressed political views, especially views that were stereotypically associated with students in the mid-2000s. I also doubt that you are basing your characterisation of the Parliament's workload on such personal experience; you can check its website to see what its members do, and it's free!
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
Won’t debate, or can’t debate - Willy the name caller. 🙂
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
[...] the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham.
This is at least one US style debate we're currently spared in Parliament.
Really strange GOP reaction to House Joint Resolution No. 34 which would clear witchcraft convictions from the Connecticut Witch Trials. Rep. Dubitsky (R) asked Beverly Khan if she had any evidence of innocence... does he think witches are real?* https://mobile.twitter.com/VincentDGabriel/status/1630994249658368008
*I think some of them do.
They'd burn Nancy Pelosi at the stake, just on the off-chance....
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
At an election, yes.
Unless ACTA was a topic at the election, it didn't do it.
The problem with bodies having powers and elections but very low turnout is that a few obsessives can dominate the election results due to the lack of proper scrutiny.
Like NUS elections where the elected representatives care more about Palestine than Tuition Fees or other student-issues, because most students never voted. Or local Labour Party bodies where the elected people care more about *checks notes* Palestine, than issues affecting the poor here. Or Council Elections where NIMBYs get a lot of loving, but people struggling to get a property don't get a look in.
The EP operates the same way, there's no active demos or scrutiny at election times as most people don't take it seriously and even most of those who do vote treat it as an extension of their domestic politics.
In a big part that's the voters and non-voters own fault, but its a problem nonetheless.
At least you are getting to the point: elections must be ABOUT something, and if they're not, ipso facto no mandate, no democracy, no consent. This is the unspoken assumption WillG was not articulating. But it's not really got anything to do with "democracy", and it's entirely subjective. Some thought the 2019GE was "about" Brexit, others thought it was "about" Corbyn, others still thought it was "about" more money for the red wall. In reality, these are media and academic concepts; voters don't get to say their vote was "about" anything; the winner gets a majority and that's it.
They get a majority for now but also they're not the only ones elected.
The problem we have is that most people only vote in National Elections. As a result powers that really ought to be local can be abused by a small minority voting to abuse those powers - yes that's democracy.
But then the outcome is the majority who are annoyed by the consequences can vote a different way at a national election. That's also democracy.
Then the national government sees that people are annoyed so they appeal to voters by doing what the silent majority at local elections aren't voting for but want, to be implemented nationally. EG local politicians appeal to NIMBYs only to be overridden after years of appeals by national laws.
Thus we end up with ever more centralisation, local politics becomes ever more niche, ever more obsessive, ever more out of touch, then ever more centralised.
Or European politics becomes out of touch, so people vote nationally to leave Europe.
Winning power and keeping power are quite rightly two very different things in a democracy. Abuse your powers and blowback is democratic too, including from those who never voted when you were elected.
He really needs to sort out the public sector strikes, at least the ones where the public are sympathetic to the strikers, as well. This will also help his ratings.
He needs inflation down a few points though before he settles...
Giving 7% when inflation is 6% and falling would be helpful.
Not an easy circle to square when food inflation is running at what? 17%.
Both the posts on this thread I am responding to seem to be relying on smoke and mirrors to deliver another Conservative Government. Here's a thought, why don't you all try something deserving of a victory, something that actually enhances the average Joe's life? No, ok, I thought not, smoke, mirrors and negativity it is.
What has Labour got to offer, if not smoke and mirrors and negativity?
On the doorsteps, there's certainly no great love for this Government. But if I were Labour, I'd be worried about the follow up you often hear: "Not that the other lot has got any clue either...."
I would very much like to see the back of this quite frankly corrupt government, but I have no great enthusiasm for any of the alternatives, it is just that anything is better that the current post-Brexit Conservatives, their key personnel all jockeying for position to ensure they reach the top of the greasy pole, the get rich quick grifts for friends and family, and the spin and the lies.
Last evening, I noted on here that HYUFD was at the point of Starmer was hand in glove with Savile and if that fails we always have capital punishment to enthuse the RedWall and stir the blue-rinse troops. We have Gavin Williamson busted for claiming teachers are workshy, we have 30p Lee hanging around branches of McDonalds to ascertain whether those claiming food bank parcels are also living it large at MaccieD's, and earlier we had the arrogant Kemi Badenoch's trolling of Carolyn Harris in Committee, over Carolyn Harris' excellent work over the peri- menopause. Don't start me on Johnson kowtowing to the DUP to feather his own nest, or Braverman seeking out the nastiest, most hateful home affairs wheezes to appeal to Reform UK voters. What function other than self- aggrandisement do the Conservative Party in its current form actually stand for?
And Sunak, someone I have time for, and hats off to him. On his watch a problem in Northern Ireland was for the most part resolved, but let's not forget he was in government when Boris Johnson broke it in the first place, and he reinstated Raab and Braverman, despite substantive evidence of serious wrongdoing, into his cabinet.
And for what it's worth I am no particular fan of, Brittas, Sir Beer-Korma, Sir Crasharoonie-Snoozefest, but in the unlikely event he becomes PM, perhaps he might inject some compassion into government, at least for the first few years, which will be a refreshing change.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, It's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
The one proposed for Newcastle was eagerly proposed by three councils partly for the finance.
I would be interested in some sensible analysis both pro and anti on this matter as most of the debate is either barking mad Eco Loons who think the world will end if people don't stop driving their 4x4's and barking mad right wingers who think this is all a WEF plot to install one world government.
The nearest I have found so far was from Sam Dumitriu.
Anyone who watches local/community social media accounts can see this is the new Brexit, at least in the way the changes to everyday life without any consent enrages people.
Cycling fanatics on twitter thinking they're winning by closing roads.
Meanwhile the average voter on facebook is furious.
I will take your word for that, and I do not mean that dismissively, as the only one I have seen on local sites is the arguments about the nonsensical change to access to the Tyne Bridge by Gateshead council and the ULEZ in Newcastle. Where I live in Durham we have not had such a scheme.
What I have noticed is that these are initiatives that go across party lines. Andy Street comes up on my Linkedin for some bizarre reason. He posted about one initiative they are looking at in Brum and reducing car ownership is very much a part of it even if the cars are low emission.
The cycling fanatics have a very well organised and well funded lobby that are happy to dismiss anyone who complains about these initiatives as pro pollution/climate change deniers.
I am a member of Cycling UK, I cycle rather alot myself, and am so purely for the liability insurance and they are always demanding local councils make changes to accomodate their demands.
As with the EU, it isn't necessarily the ever greater changes themselves, it's the continual lack of consent.
The covid LTN nonsense was a good example - lots were overturned in the following year, but from personal experience its nigh on impossible to overturn them now. Actively encouraging more congestion by closing off some direct routes seems to be the proposed solution to the problem of rush hour traffic. Council workers, rather than councillors, seem to be especially keen on the ideas around here....
LTNs were consulted extensively (check your local council website) - what we are getting now is blowback from groups who did not bother to take part in consultations, and are now upset. Much of the excitement imo shows how gullible some can be. I think that cutting off rat-running traffic is an excellent thing.
I don't recognise the "well-funded cycling lobby" trope - Cycling UK has barely 70k members, and British Cycling (the sporting body) is under 150k.
I'm a member of Cycling UK because, in addition to the insurance perhaps 90% of cyclists get get via Home Insurance policies or other means, it means I get access to specialist lawyers should I need them - and for reasonable damages civil action against self-righteous dopey drivers is usually required.
Middlesbrough or Sunderland installed facilities which used elements called "trip hazards" in National Standards, over which people tripped in the dark and went to hospital. Then cycles tracks were declared "dangerous" and the scheme stopped, rather than the Council admitting their own incompetence. That one deserves a Judicial Review, but may not get it.
I think we will see the same in RKBC - who are obstructive on roads they control. For example the High Street Ken cycle track was very quickly carrying a couple of thousand people on bikes each day, and was removed before a cost-benefit could be done. Now that lane is just another traffic jam or blocked by illegal parkers and taxi-drivers eating their sandwiches. I think we will see deaths there. RKBC is now a black hole in active travel provision in London.
In my area, I have Councillors active seeking actions to make the lives of people who walk or cycle more dangerous. But this is Ashfield and they have a lot to distract attention from.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
LTNs were consulted extensively (check your local council website) - what we are getting now is blowback from groups who did not bother to take part in consultations, and are now upset.
LOL you're confirming what I said, but from the other vantage point.
A small number of organised obsessives with an agenda can push their agenda via "consultations" that the overwhelming majority of people are not aware are even happening.
Then when others find out about it, they get annoyed, and you call that "blowback by people who didn't bother".
Plus in any case a council "consultation" is generally a sham - they've usually made up their mind before it starts.
Newcastle United exposed as liars and should get kicked out of the Premier League
Premier League clubs have reacted with anger to the description in a US court document of the Newcastle chairman, Yasir al-Rumayyan, as “a sitting minister of the Saudi government”.
The development has prompted calls from Amnesty for the league to re-examine the assurances given by Newcastle’s owners that the Saudi state would not have control of the club.
The Guardian understands that the clubs dismayed by the situation are in no mood to let the matter lie. The document filed this week has raised fresh questions about the level of separation between the Saudi state and the Public Investment Fund (PIF), whose governor is Rumayyan.
A brief filed in a court case involving the PGA Tour and LIV Golf describes the PIF as “a sovereign instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and Rumayyan as “a sitting minister of the Saudi government”.
The "consent" to roads policy is Council elections. Just like the "consent" to EU law was national and European elections. Come on. If elections don't count as consent, democracy is impossible.
Remind me the last time a vote in European elections changed EU policy. If elections don't affect government policy, they are just a facade of democracy.
Since we're talking about trade deals, the European Parliament shut down a giant IP treaty, ACTA, supported by most EU governments and the Commission.
I didn't say the EP didn't have power. I said election didn't affect its policy preferences. Did the EP support the deal and then an election change it?
To be precise, you asked about changing EU / government policy.
I asked about elections changing EU policy. That hasn't happened.
European Parliament members were elected in 2009.
And did they have any difference in policy outlook compared to EP members that existed before that? i.e. what difference did that election make?
It put into office a few hundred members who voted to bin the treaty.
You're not understanding the question, how was that a change from what came before?
I was a delegate at NUS Conference in 2003. My university seemed to be one of the only ones in the country whose delegates were apolitical. As a bloc we had a policy, agreed in the Union in advance, that the purpose of the Union was to serve students and not other policies. There were no Labour, Tory, or any other candidates elected, just candidates to serve student interests, on issues that affect students.
That do you think the first thing the NUS debated that year? Tuition Fees? Top-up fees? Student Finances? Student HMOs? No, it was the Iraq War, like the NUS had any say on the Iraq War. 🤦♂️
As a bloc I and my colleagues from our Uni all stood up and voted against a motion saying the NUS should oppose the Iraq War, we seemed to be the only ones in the room to do so, to which we got some filthy looks from many of the other delegates.
In most Student Unions across the country the elections are hijacked by left-wing people who want to further their left-wing national politics, rather than serving student interests on areas affecting students.
The same happens in the EP. European issues decided by the European Parliament are rarely debated at European Elections, instead they're a continuance of national politics by other means so obsessives and freaks like Farage and others get themselves elected to the European Parliament rather than scrutinising and debating issues the EP actually decides.
I think your grievance about being in the minority on a NUS vote is not necessarily comparable to working out the competencies of the European Parliament. But the example shows that it's hard to say what an election is "about". I'm sure many students thought their vote was indeed about having a student movement that expressed political views, especially views that were stereotypically associated with students in the mid-2000s. I also doubt that you are basing your characterisation of the Parliament's workload on such personal experience; you can check its website to see what its members do, and it's free!
I think it's unarguable that the UK sent many MEPs to the parliament who were more interested in furthering national politics than voting on European rules. There are a couple of other smaller countries where something similar happens, usually with the far left and far right. But, looking over the debates and motions in the EP over the last few years and the people engaged with them, the majority of these were properly focused on areas of EU and EP competence. Where EU membership is not in itself a culture war battleground (i.e. most countries other than the UK) it feels much more like a parliament doing what it was set up to do. Often putting pressure on the commission, for example on areas like tax reform.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, It's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
The one proposed for Newcastle was eagerly proposed by three councils partly for the finance.
I would be interested in some sensible analysis both pro and anti on this matter as most of the debate is either barking mad Eco Loons who think the world will end if people don't stop driving their 4x4's and barking mad right wingers who think this is all a WEF plot to install one world government.
The nearest I have found so far was from Sam Dumitriu.
Anyone who watches local/community social media accounts can see this is the new Brexit, at least in the way the changes to everyday life without any consent enrages people.
Cycling fanatics on twitter thinking they're winning by closing roads.
Meanwhile the average voter on facebook is furious.
I will take your word for that, and I do not mean that dismissively, as the only one I have seen on local sites is the arguments about the nonsensical change to access to the Tyne Bridge by Gateshead council and the ULEZ in Newcastle. Where I live in Durham we have not had such a scheme.
What I have noticed is that these are initiatives that go across party lines. Andy Street comes up on my Linkedin for some bizarre reason. He posted about one initiative they are looking at in Brum and reducing car ownership is very much a part of it even if the cars are low emission.
The cycling fanatics have a very well organised and well funded lobby that are happy to dismiss anyone who complains about these initiatives as pro pollution/climate change deniers.
I am a member of Cycling UK, I cycle rather alot myself, and am so purely for the liability insurance and they are always demanding local councils make changes to accomodate their demands.
As with the EU, it isn't necessarily the ever greater changes themselves, it's the continual lack of consent.
The covid LTN nonsense was a good example - lots were overturned in the following year, but from personal experience its nigh on impossible to overturn them now. Actively encouraging more congestion by closing off some direct routes seems to be the proposed solution to the problem of rush hour traffic. Council workers, rather than councillors, seem to be especially keen on the ideas around here....
LTNs were consulted extensively (check your local council website) - what we are getting now is blowback from groups who did not bother to take part in consultations, and are now upset. Much of the excitement imo shows how gullible some can be. I think that cutting off rat-running traffic is an excellent thing.
I don't recognise the "well-funded cycling lobby" trope - Cycling UK has barely 70k members, and British Cycling (the sporting body) is under 150k.
I'm a member of Cycling UK because, in addition to the insurance perhaps 90% of cyclists get get via Home Insurance policies or other means, it means I get access to specialist lawyers should I need them - and for reasonable damages civil action against self-righteous dopey drivers is usually required.
Middlesbrough or Sunderland installed facilities which used elements called "trip hazards" in National Standards, over which people tripped in the dark and went to hospital. Then cycles tracks were declared "dangerous" and the scheme stopped, rather than the Council admitting their own incompetence. That one deserves a Judicial Review, but may not get it.
I think we will see the same in RKBC - who are obstructive on roads they control. For example the High Street Ken cycle track was very quickly carrying a couple of thousand people on bikes each day, and was removed before a cost-benefit could be done. Now that lane is just another traffic jam or blocked by illegal parkers and taxi-drivers eating their sandwiches. I think we will see deaths there. RKBC is now a black hole in active travel provision in London.
In my area, I have Councillors active seeking actions to make the lives of people who walk or cycle more dangerous. But this is Ashfield and they have a lot to distract attention from.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I find Vine's feed amusing, or at least what I see of it. He has some points, but often he seems as inconsiderate as the people he is complaining about. And I say that as someone who walks, runs, cycles and drives (though not at the same time...)
LTNs were consulted extensively (check your local council website) - what we are getting now is blowback from groups who did not bother to take part in consultations, and are now upset.
LOL you're confirming what I said, but from the other vantage point.
A small number of organised obsessives with an agenda can push their agenda via "consultations" that the overwhelming majority of people are not aware are even happening.
Then when others find out about it, they get annoyed, and you call that "blowback by people who didn't bother".
Plus in any case a council "consultation" is generally a sham - they've usually made up their mind before it starts.
"Minds" - that denotes intelligence. Often, in dealing with local government, nothing passes the Turing test.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
I can't help with the family dispute.
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement? Or keep stumm.
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
You seem to think I am disputing the LTN policy. I agree with it. As regards the data from London, it might be nice to see a proper source rather than a tweet.
I am just trying to understand the electoral consequences if the policy pisses off a section of the Labour vote in Littlemore, Oxford -- which is where @El_Capitano pointed to a tricky Labour defence tonight.
FWIW I think Cambridge is doing a much better job of it than Oxford. (This is to be expected, as I'm sure @TheScreamingEagles will agree.)
Cambridge is doing a London-style congestion charge, which is a blunt instrument but equal in its impact and easy to understand. Along with this it's been putting in proper cycle infrastructure.
Oxford is doing LTN point closures (which are fine albeit controversial) but also a baffling series of traffic filters, which will have uncertain results, have a complex and uneven set of rules, and may actually worsen safety for pedestrians and cyclists in some places. It has put in basically zero safe cycling infrastructure, but rather just painted a lot of bicycle symbols on the existing roads.
As @oxfordsimon has posted, much of this is at the behest of one rather eccentric, elderly officer in the County Council who has pushed through his ideas and not really taken on board any feedback.
If Labour lose the by-election then I think the traffic filters are toast. To be honest I'm not convinced they will happen anyway: Network Rail announced the timetable for their planned works on the Botley Road rail bridge this morning, which will mean the traffic filters can't start before October 2024. All seats in the county are up for election in May 2025, so I can't see the rainbow coalition either bringing them in a few months before an election, or standing for re-election with them as a flagship policy.
If only Oxford would listen to Cambridge a bit more...
I was not trying to suggest that - apols if that came across.
I think that traffic filters, with their techno-feel, are perhaps a bit cakeist / complex. Simply filter traffic by mode, block through traffic, and have done with it.
I think that history (see various urbanist Youtube Channels such as Not Just Bikes) shows that a decent modal shift away from private vehicles (say 10-20%) reduces congestion, since other forms of urban transport are more efficient ways to move people around.
For the UK I think places where we get a third network of transport facilities, in addition to motor vehicle roads and footways, will be a revelation as we get to grips with the advantages for wheelchairs, mobility scooters, e-scooters, and other forms of micro-mobility transport which are not currently even in the system.
One of our problems is that police preached for decades that blocking paths to walkers and wheelers was important for security, and now we have local councillors irrevocably dedicated to now-illegal obstructions that are of no benefit. Greenwich put a new illegal barrier on the Thames Path in January, for example.
That tweet is a thread from a Highways professional, and was not done elsewhere.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
I can't help with the family dispute.
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement? Or keep stumm.
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
You seem to think I am disputing the LTN policy. I agree with it. As regards the data from London, it might be nice to see a proper source rather than a tweet.
I am just trying to understand the electoral consequences if the policy pisses off a section of the Labour vote in Littlemore, Oxford -- which is where @El_Capitano pointed to a tricky Labour defence tonight.
FWIW I think Cambridge is doing a much better job of it than Oxford. (This is to be expected, as I'm sure @TheScreamingEagles will agree.)
Cambridge is doing a London-style congestion charge, which is a blunt instrument but equal in its impact and easy to understand. Along with this it's been putting in proper cycle infrastructure.
Oxford is doing LTN point closures (which are fine albeit controversial) but also a baffling series of traffic filters, which will have uncertain results, have a complex and uneven set of rules, and may actually worsen safety for pedestrians and cyclists in some places. It has put in basically zero safe cycling infrastructure, but rather just painted a lot of bicycle symbols on the existing roads.
As @oxfordsimon has posted, much of this is at the behest of one rather eccentric, elderly officer in the County Council who has pushed through his ideas and not really taken on board any feedback.
If Labour lose the by-election then I think the traffic filters are toast. To be honest I'm not convinced they will happen anyway: Network Rail announced the timetable for their planned works on the Botley Road rail bridge this morning, which will mean the traffic filters can't start before October 2024. All seats in the county are up for election in May 2025, so I can't see the rainbow coalition either bringing them in a few months before an election, or standing for re-election with them as a flagship policy.
If only Oxford would listen to Cambridge a bit more...
I was not trying to suggest that - apols if that came across.
I think that traffic filters, with their techno-feel, are perhaps a bit cakeist / complex. Simply filter traffic by mode, block through traffic, and have done with it.
I think that history (see various urbanist Youtube Channels such as Not Just Bikes) shows that a decent modal shift away from private vehicles (say 10-20%) reduces congestion, since other forms of urban transport are more efficient ways to move people around.
For the UK I think places where we get a third network of transport facilities, in addition to motor vehicle roads and footways, will be a revelation as we get to grips with the advantages for wheelchairs, mobility scooters, e-scooters, and other forms of micro-mobility transport which are not currently even in the system.
One of our problems is that police preached for decades that blocking paths to walkers and wheelers was important for security, and now we have local councillors irrevocably dedicated to now-illegal obstructions that are of no benefit. Greenwich put a new illegal barrier on the Thames Path in January, for example.
That tweet is a thread from a Highways professional, and was not done elsewhere.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Incidentally, the latest on the NI shooting - the police think that it may have been people of a Loyalist background working with the New IRA on a criminal enterprise - probably drugs then.
There have been long standing suspicions in NI that while at war with each other, the Loyalists and Republicans never really did much damage to each other.
Still, bringing communities together with shared interests and all that.
He really needs to sort out the public sector strikes, at least the ones where the public are sympathetic to the strikers, as well. This will also help his ratings.
He needs inflation down a few points though before he settles...
Giving 7% when inflation is 6% and falling would be helpful.
Not an easy circle to square when food inflation is running at what? 17%.
Both the posts on this thread I am responding to seem to be relying on smoke and mirrors to deliver another Conservative Government. Here's a thought, why don't you all try something deserving of a victory, something that actually enhances the average Joe's life? No, ok, I thought not, smoke, mirrors and negativity it is.
What has Labour got to offer, if not smoke and mirrors and negativity?
On the doorsteps, there's certainly no great love for this Government. But if I were Labour, I'd be worried about the follow up you often hear: "Not that the other lot has got any clue either...."
I would very much like to see the back of this quite frankly corrupt government, but I have no great enthusiasm for any of the alternatives, it is just that anything is better that the current post-Brexit Conservatives, their key personnel all jockeying for position to ensure they reach the top of the greasy pole, the get rich quick grifts for friends and family, and the spin and the lies.
Last evening, I noted on here that HYUFD was at the point of Starmer was hand in glove with Savile and if that fails we always have capital punishment to enthuse the RedWall and stir the blue-rinse troops. We have Gavin Williamson busted for claiming teachers are workshy, we have 30p Lee hanging around branches of McDonalds to ascertain whether those claiming food bank parcels are also living it large at MaccieD's, and earlier we had the arrogant Kemi Badenoch's trolling of Carolyn Harris in Committee, over Carolyn Harris' excellent work over the peri- menopause. Don't start me on Johnson kowtowing to the DUP to feather his own nest, or Braverman seeking out the nastiest, most hateful home affairs wheezes to appeal to Reform UK voters. What function other than self- aggrandisement do the Conservative Party in its current form actually stand for?
And Sunak, someone I have time for, and hats off to him. On his watch a problem in Northern Ireland was for the most part resolved, but let's not forget he was in government when Boris Johnson broke it in the first place, and he reinstated Raab and Braverman, despite substantive evidence of serious wrongdoing, into his cabinet.
And for what it's worth I am no particular fan of, Brittas, Sir Beer-Korma, Sir Crasharoonie-Snoozefest, but in the unlikely event he becomes PM, perhaps he might inject some compassion into government, at least for the first few years, which will be a refreshing change.
We havn’t the time to read through long rambling essays like that.
In local news, there's an interesting double by-election in Littlemore & Rose Hill today, one of the more working class parts of Oxford. Both city and county seats are up for election. Both were held by Labour, though by two different councillors (the county one was beyond hopeless and had, I believe, the worst attendance record on the whole council; I don't know the city one at all; it seems curious that they resigned at the same time).
Littlemore has one of Oxford's much-discussed Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. There's an Independent standing on a platform of opposition to it, and the Tories have come out against it too (even though they pushed LTNs, and implemented several, while in control of the county council).
The LibDems and Greens aren't making much of an effort - Littlemore isn't fertile territory for either of them. As usual for East Oxford there are TUSC candidates too.
I think it'll come down to Labour vs Independent, and if pushed I'd say Labour will hold it, but it's far from a done deal.
An interesting set of by-elections indeed.
The (less advanced) Cambridge equivalent Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme is already developing into a battleground between familiar stereotypes.
The bicycling lefty dons versus the hard-working poor. The intellectual elite versus the struggling, down-to-earth workers.
For example, my brother-in-law (staunch Labour) literally cannot contain his rage about it. I have never seen him angrier.
Prediction -- this is the new Brexit.
This is Farage's next Big Issue. It is tailor-made to pit one section of Labour voters against another section.
I'm not convinced it's the new Brexit, as it's an issue imo with strictly limited mileage. I think that perhaps the "working class", like "disabled people", are being used as human shields by various quite-Right political types.
We are seeing increasing evidence that what Khan is doing in London is working.
What are the protestors proposing as their tool to meet legally binding emissions targets, which have been delegated down by the Government, should the LEZ and so on be cancelled?
A workplace parking levy might make more sense for Cambridge, and it's notable that quite a lot of places are now cancelling low-emission zones, as they are meeting emissions targets.
Among those who haven't done very much are the mainly Tory Outer London Boroughs who are now moaning their heads off, and LD Boroughs who want a delay. Examples of London Boroughs:
I support what Cambridge are trying to do. It is a medieval city with way, way too much traffic.
My point was my brother-in-law was ready to kick my head in over this.
And he votes Labour and works as ancillary staff in Addenbrooke's Hospital.
I think you are underestimating how angry a sizeable fraction of people are about this.
As for me, I broadly agree with it.
I am just worried about the punishment beating I am going to get at the next family reunion. He's a big man.
I can't help with the family dispute.
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement? Or keep stumm.
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
You seem to think I am disputing the LTN policy. I agree with it. As regards the data from London, it might be nice to see a proper source rather than a tweet.
I am just trying to understand the electoral consequences if the policy pisses off a section of the Labour vote in Littlemore, Oxford -- which is where @El_Capitano pointed to a tricky Labour defence tonight.
FWIW I think Cambridge is doing a much better job of it than Oxford. (This is to be expected, as I'm sure @TheScreamingEagles will agree.)
Cambridge is doing a London-style congestion charge, which is a blunt instrument but equal in its impact and easy to understand. Along with this it's been putting in proper cycle infrastructure.
Oxford is doing LTN point closures (which are fine albeit controversial) but also a baffling series of traffic filters, which will have uncertain results, have a complex and uneven set of rules, and may actually worsen safety for pedestrians and cyclists in some places. It has put in basically zero safe cycling infrastructure, but rather just painted a lot of bicycle symbols on the existing roads.
As @oxfordsimon has posted, much of this is at the behest of one rather eccentric, elderly officer in the County Council who has pushed through his ideas and not really taken on board any feedback.
If Labour lose the by-election then I think the traffic filters are toast. To be honest I'm not convinced they will happen anyway: Network Rail announced the timetable for their planned works on the Botley Road rail bridge this morning, which will mean the traffic filters can't start before October 2024. All seats in the county are up for election in May 2025, so I can't see the rainbow coalition either bringing them in a few months before an election, or standing for re-election with them as a flagship policy.
If only Oxford would listen to Cambridge a bit more...
I was not trying to suggest that - apols if that came across.
I think that traffic filters, with their techno-feel, are perhaps a bit cakeist / complex. Simply filter traffic by mode, block through traffic, and have done with it.
I think that history (see various urbanist Youtube Channels such as Not Just Bikes) shows that a decent modal shift away from private vehicles (say 10-20%) reduces congestion, since other forms of urban transport are more efficient ways to move people around.
For the UK I think places where we get a third network of transport facilities, in addition to motor vehicle roads and footways, will be a revelation as we get to grips with the advantages for wheelchairs, mobility scooters, e-scooters, and other forms of micro-mobility transport which are not currently even in the system.
One of our problems is that police preached for decades that blocking paths to walkers and wheelers was important for security, and now we have local councillors irrevocably dedicated to now-illegal obstructions that are of no benefit. Greenwich put a new illegal barrier on the Thames Path in January, for example.
That tweet is a thread from a Highways professional, and was not done elsewhere.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
There are more humane forms of capital punishment, you know ?
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points. 1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs. 2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, and lots of dashcammers are all we have.
Speaking as a cyclist, tragic though it must be for the dead person's family, on the facts as reported that's an utterly ridiculous verdict:
1) If the police could not say it was a shared space, then it wasn't. Something is not a *shared space* unless clearly nominated as such. So if the report is accurate the judge has misdirected the jury.
2) Even if it was a shared space, the cyclist had no business cycling towards a pedestrian like that, as they would have right of way and must be given that way. (I would add, if it was a shared space it's totally unsuitable for it given how narrow it is.)
3) Shouting 'get off the fucking path' to somebody who is illegally cycling on the path and presenting a hazard is not actually an unreasonable thing to do.
4) How is it, to take this to its logical end, that an illegal motorcyclist round here riding at high speed on the pavement can get a telling off (literally, that is what Staffordshire Police will do) and somebody shouting at somebody to stop breaking the law, albeit with this horrible result, gets sent to prison?
An example of how the law can make a complete ass of itself.
Speaking as a cyclist, tragic though it must be for the dead person's family, on the facts as reported that's an utterly ridiculous verdict:
1) If the police could not say it was a shared space, then it wasn't. Something is not a *shared space* unless clearly nominated as such. So if the report is accurate the judge has misdirected the jury.
2) Even if it was a shared space, the cyclist had no business cycling towards a pedestrian like that, as they would have right of way and must be given that way. (I would add, if it was a shared space it's totally unsuitable for it given how narrow it is.)
3) Shouting 'get off the fucking path' to somebody who is illegally cycling on the path and presenting a hazard is not actually an unreasonable thing to do.
4) How is it, to take this to its logical end, that an illegal motorcyclist round here riding at high speed on the pavement can get a telling off (literally, that is what Staffordshire Police will do) and somebody shouting at somebody to stop breaking the law, albeit with this horrible result, gets sent to prison?
An example of how the law can make a complete ass of itself.
A tragic case, yes, but I was taught that cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement unless indicated otherwise. I assume she'll appeal?
Comments
5% growth is broadly consistent with non inflation-adjusted GDP growth.
One reason we see different stars for UK-EU trade is FX. These numbers are in Sterling but EU countries’ imports from UK are often shown in Euros, where the weakening of Sterling after the vote reduces the value.
A lot of the rants were of the form "it's my god given right as an Englishman to carry on doing things exactly as we always have done" and people were definitely getting very angry about it.
Of course without the leaked messages there would be no article, but whatever.
If you get your political jollies by letting the Tories in so be it but you are in a tiny minority on the left. Personally I would love to see Corbyn start his own party because it would perform disastrously. The thought of him dithering over whether to support Ukraine would even have me voting for Sunak in a nano-second.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points and facts from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
Look
https://news.sky.com/story/windsor-framework-what-role-will-eu-rules-continue-to-play-in-northern-ireland-12822023
https://news.sky.com/story/new-uk-eu-deal-on-northern-ireland-might-not-be-the-slam-dunk-the-pm-is-hoping-for-beth-rigby-12821735
The CPTPP brings substantial liberalization into the service trade, particularly around digital products. The main changes after the US left were strengthened environmental and labor protections, plus less aggressive IP regulations.
When was the last government announcement where the details weren't less attractive than the Day One hype?
But as staff at Addenbrooke's perhaps he could explain how he would deal with air pollution, which is a legal requirement?
AFAICS the data from London is demonstrating that a - LTNs do not cause extra traffic or emissions on boundary or internal streets, and b - that emissions are being reduced significantly.
I just can't see a problem with preventing rat-runners from driving through residential areas - it's only a modest version of the standards which apply to all new developments, and has been in extensive use for at least half a century - albeit in places in a misapplied, 'we're not-learning-from-other-places', mealy-mouthed half-hearted incompetent British local council sort of way.
The ‘Russian Volunteer Corps’ (RDK), the combat unit on the 🇺🇦 side who claims to have made an incursion into Bryansk 🇷🇺 (i.e., likely not a 'false flag'), are led by a figure well known to myself and those who follow the transnational far right: Denis Kapustin (aka Nikitin)
https://mobile.twitter.com/ColborneMichael/status/1631290704625319939
I didn't know they'd tried to move, mind you.
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
So keep doing what we're doing, raise standards for new vehicles, and old vehicles get worn out and replaced.
If there are a few roads where particulates are above the legal requirement, why not design policies for those roads, rather than implement zones over the entire city or worse multiple towns as well as a city like Greater Manchester wanted to do?
Wonderful to hear of similar schemes in other cities. Air pollution is the silent killer and we need to combat it.
Ulez works.
I am just trying to understand the electoral consequences if the policy pisses off a section of the Labour vote in Littlemore, Oxford -- which is where @El_Capitano pointed to a tricky Labour defence tonight.
Really strange GOP reaction to House Joint Resolution No. 34 which would clear witchcraft convictions from the Connecticut Witch Trials. Rep. Dubitsky (R) asked Beverly Khan if she had any evidence of innocence... does he think witches are real?*
https://mobile.twitter.com/VincentDGabriel/status/1630994249658368008
*I think some of them do.
On the doorsteps, there's certainly no great love for this Government. But if I were Labour, I'd be worried about the follow up you often hear: "Not that the other lot has got any clue either...."
Unless ACTA was a topic at the election, it didn't do it.
The problem with bodies having powers and elections but very low turnout is that a few obsessives can dominate the election results due to the lack of proper scrutiny.
Like NUS elections where the elected representatives care more about Palestine than Tuition Fees or other student-issues, because most students never voted. Or local Labour Party bodies where the elected people care more about *checks notes* Palestine, than issues affecting the poor here. Or Council Elections where NIMBYs get a lot of loving, but people struggling to get a property don't get a look in.
The EP operates the same way, there's no active demos or scrutiny at election times as most people don't take it seriously and even most of those who do vote treat it as an extension of their domestic politics.
In a big part that's the voters and non-voters own fault, but its a problem nonetheless.
I assume he's gotten wind if the DUP pretext for responding.
I also stand by that Boris will be pissed off and annoyed that he isn't PM, that he's not the one getting credit for this, so will be petulant about it because he cares more about Boris than about Belfast.
Oppositions do it continuously when they can find even a single case of someone worse off as a result of a policy.
Football: first Serie A bet since January, on Napoli/Lazio scoring over 2.5 goals at evens.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/03/everything-but-epl-2-march-2023.html
Also a couple of Ligue 1 bets.
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
You have to accept as fact, Sunak’s deal will not end EU law in Northern Ireland, nor ultimate oversight of EU judges in some circumstances. You have to accept as fact, insofar the border in Irish Sea is not there anymore, it’s instead replaced by extra focus on increased market surveillance North-South Ireland border - where everyone feared that focus being hence border in Irish Sea in first place. And this is the reason, as EU and UK increasingly diverge, the EU want the power Sunak is giving them to place new EU rules and law on NI, to smooth that border into the softest thing, and will get away with doing that because the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham. Sunak’s agreement gives EU all this, plus the ability to take 'appropriate remedial measures' whenever a new EU rule is actually thwarted. But as Sam Coates says, I quote “As a consequence, none of this makes it sound like the veto at the heart of the deal will be in regular use: is it really a lever to look at and admire rather than pull.”
If you make out I’m wrong, you are claiming our mainstream media are wrong, they are the ones explaining these facts to us.
What this deal is really all about is Sunak and EU agreed on smoothing the NI v to ROI border into the smoothest trading border ever - by mechanism of new EU law dropped on NI the politicians there can do nothing about. The DUP are being offered Second Class Sovereignty, and no control over new EU rules upon their country, on the claimed trade off that their uniquely being in two markets is the best place for business on earth - I’m not hailing this as fantastic or dreadful - I’m merely saying is this not the fact at the heart of this deal the DUP are now mulling over?
Yes or no?
I think I understand it all very well, to be honest with you.
I was a delegate at NUS Conference in 2003. My university seemed to be one of the only ones in the country whose delegates were apolitical. As a bloc we had a policy, agreed in the Union in advance, that the purpose of the Union was to serve students and not other policies. There were no Labour, Tory, or any other candidates elected, just candidates to serve student interests, on issues that affect students.
That do you think the first thing the NUS debated that year? Tuition Fees? Top-up fees? Student Finances? Student HMOs? No, it was the Iraq War, like the NUS had any say on the Iraq War. 🤦♂️
As a bloc I and my colleagues from our Uni all stood up and voted against a motion saying the NUS should oppose the Iraq War, we seemed to be the only ones in the room to do so, to which we got some filthy looks from many of the other delegates.
In most Student Unions across the country the elections are hijacked by left-wing people who want to further their left-wing national politics, rather than serving student interests on areas affecting students.
The same happens in the EP. European issues decided by the European Parliament are rarely debated at European Elections, instead they're a continuance of national politics by other means so obsessives and freaks like Farage and others get themselves elected to the European Parliament rather than scrutinising and debating issues the EP actually decides.
Cambridge is doing a London-style congestion charge, which is a blunt instrument but equal in its impact and easy to understand. Along with this it's been putting in proper cycle infrastructure.
Oxford is doing LTN point closures (which are fine albeit controversial) but also a baffling series of traffic filters, which will have uncertain results, have a complex and uneven set of rules, and may actually worsen safety for pedestrians and cyclists in some places. It has put in basically zero safe cycling infrastructure, but rather just painted a lot of bicycle symbols on the existing roads.
As @oxfordsimon has posted, much of this is at the behest of one rather eccentric, elderly officer in the County Council who has pushed through his ideas and not really taken on board any feedback.
If Labour lose the by-election then I think the traffic filters are toast. To be honest I'm not convinced they will happen anyway: Network Rail announced the timetable for their planned works on the Botley Road rail bridge this morning, which will mean the traffic filters can't start before October 2024. All seats in the county are up for election in May 2025, so I can't see the rainbow coalition either bringing them in a few months before an election, or standing for re-election with them as a flagship policy.
If only Oxford would listen to Cambridge a bit more...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64319027
LTNs were consulted extensively (check your local council website) - what we are getting now is blowback from groups who did not bother to take part in consultations, and are now upset. Much of the excitement imo shows how gullible some can be. I think that cutting off rat-running traffic is an excellent thing.
I don't recognise the "well-funded cycling lobby" trope - Cycling UK has barely 70k members, and British Cycling (the sporting body) is under 150k.
I'm a member of Cycling UK because, in addition to the insurance perhaps 90% of cyclists get get via Home Insurance policies or other means, it means I get access to specialist lawyers should I need them - and for reasonable damages civil action against self-righteous dopey drivers is usually required.
Middlesbrough or Sunderland installed facilities which used elements called "trip hazards" in National Standards, over which people tripped in the dark and went to hospital. Then cycles tracks were declared "dangerous" and the scheme stopped, rather than the Council admitting their own incompetence. That one deserves a Judicial Review, but may not get it.
I think we will see the same in RKBC - who are obstructive on roads they control. For example the High Street Ken cycle track was very quickly carrying a couple of thousand people on bikes each day, and was removed before a cost-benefit could be done. Now that lane is just another traffic jam or blocked by illegal parkers and taxi-drivers eating their sandwiches. I think we will see deaths there. RKBC is now a black hole in active travel provision in London.
In my area, I have Councillors active seeking actions to make the lives of people who walk or cycle more dangerous. But this is Ashfield and they have a lot to distract attention from.
And we used to do really well with services but a lot of that will have disappeared now UK Citizens can't fly round Europe weekly - granted it was a niche role but it did pay well...
A small number of organised obsessives with an agenda can push their agenda via "consultations" that the overwhelming majority of people are not aware are even happening.
Then when others find out about it, they get annoyed, and you call that "blowback by people who didn't bother".
https://twitter.com/PaulEremenko/status/1625564075794268161
(Yes, I know hydrogen can be very bad for the environment. But I'd bet on hydrogen for flight over batteries)
The problem we have is that most people only vote in National Elections. As a result powers that really ought to be local can be abused by a small minority voting to abuse those powers - yes that's democracy.
But then the outcome is the majority who are annoyed by the consequences can vote a different way at a national election. That's also democracy.
Then the national government sees that people are annoyed so they appeal to voters by doing what the silent majority at local elections aren't voting for but want, to be implemented nationally. EG local politicians appeal to NIMBYs only to be overridden after years of appeals by national laws.
Thus we end up with ever more centralisation, local politics becomes ever more niche, ever more obsessive, ever more out of touch, then ever more centralised.
Or European politics becomes out of touch, so people vote nationally to leave Europe.
Winning power and keeping power are quite rightly two very different things in a democracy. Abuse your powers and blowback is democratic too, including from those who never voted when you were elected.
Last evening, I noted on here that HYUFD was at the point of Starmer was hand in glove with Savile and if that fails we always have capital punishment to enthuse the RedWall and stir the blue-rinse troops. We have Gavin Williamson busted for claiming teachers are workshy, we have 30p Lee hanging around branches of McDonalds to ascertain whether those claiming food bank parcels are also living it large at MaccieD's, and earlier we had the arrogant Kemi Badenoch's trolling of Carolyn Harris in Committee, over Carolyn Harris' excellent work over the peri- menopause. Don't start me on Johnson kowtowing to the DUP to feather his own nest, or Braverman seeking out the nastiest, most hateful home affairs wheezes to appeal to Reform UK voters. What function other than self- aggrandisement do the Conservative Party in its current form actually stand for?
And Sunak, someone I have time for, and hats off to him. On his watch a problem in Northern Ireland was for the most part resolved, but let's not forget he was in government when Boris Johnson broke it in the first place, and he reinstated Raab and Braverman, despite substantive evidence of serious wrongdoing, into his cabinet.
And for what it's worth I am no particular fan of, Brittas, Sir Beer-Korma, Sir Crasharoonie-Snoozefest, but in the unlikely event he becomes PM, perhaps he might inject some compassion into government, at least for the first few years, which will be a refreshing change.
Newcastle United exposed as liars and should get kicked out of the Premier League
Premier League clubs have reacted with anger to the description in a US court document of the Newcastle chairman, Yasir al-Rumayyan, as “a sitting minister of the Saudi government”.
The development has prompted calls from Amnesty for the league to re-examine the assurances given by Newcastle’s owners that the Saudi state would not have control of the club.
The Guardian understands that the clubs dismayed by the situation are in no mood to let the matter lie. The document filed this week has raised fresh questions about the level of separation between the Saudi state and the Public Investment Fund (PIF), whose governor is Rumayyan.
A brief filed in a court case involving the PGA Tour and LIV Golf describes the PIF as “a sovereign instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and Rumayyan as “a sitting minister of the Saudi government”.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/02/premier-league-newcastle-owners-us-court-case-amnesty
He needs a chill pill.
I think that traffic filters, with their techno-feel, are perhaps a bit cakeist / complex. Simply filter traffic by mode, block through traffic, and have done with it.
I think that history (see various urbanist Youtube Channels such as Not Just Bikes) shows that a decent modal shift away from private vehicles (say 10-20%) reduces congestion, since other forms of urban transport are more efficient ways to move people around.
For the UK I think places where we get a third network of transport facilities, in addition to motor vehicle roads and footways, will be a revelation as we get to grips with the advantages for wheelchairs, mobility scooters, e-scooters, and other forms of micro-mobility transport which are not currently even in the system.
One of our problems is that police preached for decades that blocking paths to walkers and wheelers was important for security, and now we have local councillors irrevocably dedicated to now-illegal obstructions that are of no benefit. Greenwich put a new illegal barrier on the Thames Path in January, for example.
That tweet is a thread from a Highways professional, and was not done elsewhere.
For data on LTNs in London, here is one recent study on traffic from the Uni of Westminster:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64319027
And one on traffic and emissions from Imperial College:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241731/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-reduce-pollution-surrounding-streets/
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking
- Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
There have been long standing suspicions in NI that while at war with each other, the Loyalists and Republicans never really did much damage to each other.
Still, bringing communities together with shared interests and all that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=218&v=MnrfJzckal4&embeds_euri=https://order-order.com/&source_ve_path=MTM5MTE3&feature=emb_logo
You lost me on the first “I”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436.amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63914518
That's a terrible loss...
...to the Unionist side.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does. I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, and lots of dashcammers are all we have.
1) If the police could not say it was a shared space, then it wasn't. Something is not a *shared space* unless clearly nominated as such. So if the report is accurate the judge has misdirected the jury.
2) Even if it was a shared space, the cyclist had no business cycling towards a pedestrian like that, as they would have right of way and must be given that way. (I would add, if it was a shared space it's totally unsuitable for it given how narrow it is.)
3) Shouting 'get off the fucking path' to somebody who is illegally cycling on the path and presenting a hazard is not actually an unreasonable thing to do.
4) How is it, to take this to its logical end, that an illegal motorcyclist round here riding at high speed on the pavement can get a telling off (literally, that is what Staffordshire Police will do) and somebody shouting at somebody to stop breaking the law, albeit with this horrible result, gets sent to prison?
An example of how the law can make a complete ass of itself.