The Tory housing crisis – politicalbetting.com

System

The Tory housing crisis – politicalbetting.com

The Conservatives have an electoral problem among homeowners.Labour has led the Conservatives among homeowners in EVERY poll since the mini budget last September, leading by 1% in our latest poll.For more analysis, read this week’s Magnified:https://t.co/oXWNvSKLck pic.twitter.com/44r7UkRoaB

Read the full story here

Fishing

Difficult to pose as the party of home ownership when you're not building nearly enough homes for people to own.

And, which people often overlook in their fixation numbers built, the houses that are built are low quality and far too small.

DecrepiterJohnL

If, as per the header, even homeowners favour Labour for the past six months, this is more likely to be a mortgage interest rates problem than directly related to the numbers of houses built.

Chris

From the BBC:
"Boris Johnson has been warned public funding for his legal representation to the Covid inquiry could be withdrawn if he tries to "undermine" the government. "

It was bad enough that the taxpayer was funding Johnson's defence of his crimes in the first place. But now the government is using that funding to try to force him to back its defiance of the law?

Standards in public life are at sub-banana-republic level in this country now.

Heathener

Morning to y'all.

Quality of life is also dropping because there are too many people living on this small island.

That's not a comment about immigration. The number of humans on the planet is increasingly unsustainable.

Heathener

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

Pulpstar

Heathener said:

Morning to y'all.

Quality of life is also dropping because there are too many people living on this small island.

That's not a comment about immigration. The number of humans on the planet is increasingly unsustainable.

That's definitely a comment about immigration as our tfr is sub 2

Malmesbury

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Malmesbury

Heathener said:

Morning to y'all.

Quality of life is also dropping because there are too many people living on this small island.

That's not a comment about immigration. The number of humans on the planet is increasingly unsustainable.

It is a comment on immigration since that is why the population is increasing.

Without immigration we would be looking at Japan style demographics. Primary schools closing for lack of need etc.

Malmesbury

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If, as per the header, even homeowners favour Labour for the past six months, this is more likely to be a mortgage interest rates problem than directly related to the numbers of houses built.

I think it is more that the Conservatives have lost people from every voting group. Which is why the Labour leads are large and solid.

Wulfrun_Phil

Regardless of what the BoE does going forward, on average homeowners with mortgages are going to be paying a lot more on average over the next 12 months than they did over the previous 12 months. For most there is a significant time lag between building societies raising interest rates on mortgages and when people start to pay those higher rates. Higher rates don't kick in until existing fixed rate mortgage deals end, and a lot more of the old cheap deals are going to end over the next 12 months. A friend has just put her house on the market because she can't afford to renew her mortgage deal.

So to be honest I'm surprised that the Tories have even managed to close the polling gap a bit amongst homeowners over the last 6 months, with some people already coming off the old cheaper deals in that period. In so far as they have done so, it must be down to homeowning older people like me who have paid off their mortgage and I doubt whether the gap has come down as much amongst those with mortgages only. I don't think that Sunak is going to be able to get away with blaming Truss for higher mortgage rates for much longer either.

DecrepiterJohnL

Labour should announce more policies, like its plan to train more doctors and nurses. Which brings us nicely to:-

Rishi Sunak’s £1bn plan to fix NHS staffing crisis
Thousands of new places at medical school and 2,000 more GPs will be included in proposals to heal the health service
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunaks-1bn-plan-to-fix-nhs-staffing-crisis-vqf2t2pww (£££)

Taz

Heathener said:

Morning to y'all.

Quality of life is also dropping because there are too many people living on this small island.

That's not a comment about immigration. The number of humans on the planet is increasingly unsustainable.

.

Populations are already declining in many countries, including China.

Global population will be failing by the end of the century.

Should keep the eco loons happy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/27/world-population-bomb-may-never-go-off-as-feared-finds-study#:~:text=In the business-as-usual,to 7.3 billion in 2100.

OnlyLivingBoy

Heathener said:

Morning to y'all.

Quality of life is also dropping because there are too many people living on this small island.

That's not a comment about immigration. The number of humans on the planet is increasingly unsustainable.

If you were to survey people on their quality of life I am pretty sure you would find it was higher in areas where the population is increasing than in areas where it is decreasing. The poor quality of life that many experience has a wide range of causes, I don't think rising population is a major factor here, and it wouldn't be a factor at all if we could get off our arse and build more housing.

BlancheLivermore

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

Malmesbury

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

Morris_Dancer

Betting Post

Good morning, everyone.

F1: super heroic and mega original bet, backing Alonso to be on the podium at 2.8.

https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/06/spain-pre-race-2023.html

Malmesbury

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Heathener said:

Morning to y'all.

Quality of life is also dropping because there are too many people living on this small island.

That's not a comment about immigration. The number of humans on the planet is increasingly unsustainable.

If you were to survey people on their quality of life I am pretty sure you would find it was higher in areas where the population is increasing than in areas where it is decreasing. The poor quality of life that many experience has a wide range of causes, I don't think rising population is a major factor here, and it wouldn't be a factor at all if we could get off our arse and build more housing.

It depends on your pint of view. A couple of summers back I did some walking in the Cotswolds. You could fit plenty more nice little villages and some towns in there - without ruin img the place. Unless you are the kind of person who thinks that humans detract from the landscape rather than adding to it.

Stuartinromford

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

Morning to y'all.

Quality of life is also dropping because there are too many people living on this small island.

That's not a comment about immigration. The number of humans on the planet is increasingly unsustainable.

It is a comment on immigration since that is why the population is increasing.

Without immigration we would be looking at Japan style demographics. Primary schools closing for lack of need etc.

Already happening in London:

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/study-reveals-full-scale-of-london-pupil-exodus-amid-school-closures/

Willingness to have children is one of those indicator species of a happy confident people.

Which is presumably why Boris has so many.

SouthamObserver

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

FeersumEnjineeya

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

pigeon

Fishing said:

Difficult to pose as the party of home ownership when you're not building nearly enough homes for people to own.

And, which people often overlook in their fixation numbers built, the houses that are built are low quality and far too small.

Indeed. New builds are not always, but very often, shit. Ludicrously overpriced shoeboxes made of cardboard and polystyrene, with (if memory serves) the meanest, smallest, pokiest room sizes in Europe. Because, of course, cramming the maximum number of tiny boxes made of the cheapest available materials onto a plot of land maximises profit.

If you can get the shoeboxes built in the first place over the objections of Nimbies, who hate development of any kind, of course...

NIMBYs: stop building housing without the infrastructure.

Also NIMBYs: stop building the infrastructure for housing.

https://twitter.com/DuncanStott/status/1664598827704221696

This is where the Tories find themselves. Renewing their voter base before they all die of old age relies on rescuing young renters from a whole lifetime of paying a third or a half of their income to a rentier, and into their own homes. Building the homes for young renters means their voter base throw their rattles out of their prams. There's no violin small enough.

DecrepiterJohnL

pigeon said:

Fishing said:

Difficult to pose as the party of home ownership when you're not building nearly enough homes for people to own.

And, which people often overlook in their fixation numbers built, the houses that are built are low quality and far too small.

Indeed. New builds are not always, but very often, shit. Ludicrously overpriced shoeboxes made of cardboard and polystyrene, with (if memory serves) the meanest, smallest, pokiest room sizes in Europe. Because, of course, cramming the maximum number of tiny boxes made of the cheapest available materials onto a plot of land maximises profit.

If you can get the shoeboxes built in the first place over the objections of Nimbies, who hate development of any kind, of course...

NIMBYs: stop building housing without the infrastructure.

Also NIMBYs: stop building the infrastructure for housing.

https://twitter.com/DuncanStott/status/1664598827704221696

This is where the Tories find themselves. Renewing their voter base before they all die of old age relies on rescuing young renters from a whole lifetime of paying a third or a half of their income to a rentier, and into their own homes. Building the homes for young renters means their voter base throw their rattles out of their prams. There's no violin small enough.

The stuff about rent and nimbies might be true but is largely irrelevant to the Conservatives being unpopular even with homeowners.

FeersumEnjineeya

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Dura_Ace

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's less efficient to charge a BEV to 100% because regen braking generally doesn't start working until it's at 90-95%.

Also, batteries with NMC chemistry have their longevity prolonged by charging to 80%. BMW recommend this for Mrs DA's iX and I'm sure they will wipe their arses on the battery warranty if I fuck around with the charging settings and let it charge to 100%.

FeersumEnjineeya

Dura_Ace said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's less efficient to charge a BEV to 100% because regen braking generally doesn't start working until it's at 90-95%.

True, and it's also more time consuming since the charging rate drops as you near 100%.

kamski

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems."

Begins Rowan Atkinson. I'm assuming his degrees were done in the 1970s. The fact that he thinks this gives him some current expertise on electric vehicles already makes the rest of the article unlikely to be worth reading. Why didn't the Guardian get someone who actually knows something to write on this? I guess Guardian readers are sick of experts and prefer celebrity clickbait.

pigeon

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

It's all of a piece with the fact that the Conservative Party is a lobby group for well-to-do retired homeowners and their late middle-aged children. It's worthless and useless for almost everyone aged under about 50. The bleeding white of the young through rents and sky-high taxes on incomes, whilst rich old people are shielded and mollycoddled through the lenient tax treatment of assets and the gold-plating of universal pension benefits, is all by design.

Broadly speaking, young workers must be impoverished to subsidise luxury spending by the majority of the grey vote that owns property and still votes Tory, and to ensure that the estates of said elderly can be passed on intact when they die. It's all about the ossification of social strata, the redistribution of wealth upwards, and the preservation of inheritances: government by and for the landed gentry. Whether you call it the Gerontocracy or Neo-Hanoverianism, it's undoubtedly a thing.

DougSeal

kamski said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems."

Begins Rowan Atkinson. I'm assuming his degrees were done in the 1970s. The fact that he thinks this gives him some current expertise on electric vehicles already makes the rest of the article unlikely to be worth reading. Why didn't the Guardian get someone who actually knows something to write on this? I guess Guardian readers are sick of experts and prefer celebrity clickbait.

He does qualify his statement with “in theory”.

pigeon

DecrepiterJohnL said:

pigeon said:

Fishing said:

Difficult to pose as the party of home ownership when you're not building nearly enough homes for people to own.

And, which people often overlook in their fixation numbers built, the houses that are built are low quality and far too small.

Indeed. New builds are not always, but very often, shit. Ludicrously overpriced shoeboxes made of cardboard and polystyrene, with (if memory serves) the meanest, smallest, pokiest room sizes in Europe. Because, of course, cramming the maximum number of tiny boxes made of the cheapest available materials onto a plot of land maximises profit.

If you can get the shoeboxes built in the first place over the objections of Nimbies, who hate development of any kind, of course...

NIMBYs: stop building housing without the infrastructure.

Also NIMBYs: stop building the infrastructure for housing.

https://twitter.com/DuncanStott/status/1664598827704221696

This is where the Tories find themselves. Renewing their voter base before they all die of old age relies on rescuing young renters from a whole lifetime of paying a third or a half of their income to a rentier, and into their own homes. Building the homes for young renters means their voter base throw their rattles out of their prams. There's no violin small enough.

The stuff about rent and nimbies might be true but is largely irrelevant to the Conservatives being unpopular even with homeowners.

I don't read too much into polls like this. Yes, the Conservatives will inevitably lose some of the mortgage payers as interest rates skyrocket, but I suspect that the numbers are largely the product of the usual mid-term fit-throwing against incumbency. This is liable to unwind again at an election when Tory core voters, who have done very well indeed out of the last 13 years, contemplate letting Labour back in.

tlg86

I hope the police are doing their best to find this fan:

https://twitter.com/MufcWonItAll/status/1665081094151057410

When you do the right thing once…

Penddu2

kamski said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems."

Begins Rowan Atkinson. I'm assuming his degrees were done in the 1970s. The fact that he thinks this gives him some current expertise on electric vehicles already makes the rest of the article unlikely to be worth reading. Why didn't the Guardian get someone who actually knows something to write on this? I guess Guardian readers are sick of experts and prefer celebrity clickbait.

I have a degree in Civil Engineering - which is almost as completely applicable today as it was when I did it. But if you studied Electronics (or computing or biotechnology etc) then its applicability degrades rapidly with time - If you are not working in the field and staying up to date with technology you might as well have a degree in history (which has always been worthless)

Malmesbury

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

To be fair, Atkinson does go through cars fairly quickly - apparently a car with his ownership in the book sells for more than the original purchase price.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

I've just picked Mrs J up from the airport, after her holiday to Turkey, and she has brought some baklava back with her.

Over 2kg of baklava.

I can almost feel my arteries hardening just looking at it...

Penddu2

Chris said:

From the BBC:
"Boris Johnson has been warned public funding for his legal representation to the Covid inquiry could be withdrawn if he tries to "undermine" the government. "

It was bad enough that the taxpayer was funding Johnson's defence of his crimes in the first place. But now the government is using that funding to try to force him to back its defiance of the law?

Standards in public life are at sub-banana-republic level in this country now.

Isnt this a massive conflict of interest ??? Support the government (in their enquiry) and we will cover your legal costs....if not we will screw you.

Malmesbury

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Dura_Ace said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's less efficient to charge a BEV to 100% because regen braking generally doesn't start working until it's at 90-95%.

True, and it's also more time consuming since the charging rate drops as you near 100%.

The sweet spot for fastest charging is generally something like 20-80%

DougSeal

Penddu2 said:

kamski said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems."

Begins Rowan Atkinson. I'm assuming his degrees were done in the 1970s. The fact that he thinks this gives him some current expertise on electric vehicles already makes the rest of the article unlikely to be worth reading. Why didn't the Guardian get someone who actually knows something to write on this? I guess Guardian readers are sick of experts and prefer celebrity clickbait.

I have a degree in Civil Engineering - which is almost as completely applicable today as it was when I did it. But if you studied Electronics (or computing or biotechnology etc) then its applicability degrades rapidly with time - If you are not working in the field and staying up to date with technology you might as well have a degree in history (which has always been worthless)

Yes. As I sit here in my hovel, with only the meagre takings of a partner in a City law firm to tide me over, I think to myself, “it all went wrong when I decided to do history”.

Andy_Cooke

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

And that manufacturing emissions depend on where it is built (mainly the carbon intensity of the electricity grid), and manufacturers are shifting production of EVs to countries with lower emissions already (eg Audi).

Carnyx

pigeon said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

It's all of a piece with the fact that the Conservative Party is a lobby group for well-to-do retired homeowners and their late middle-aged children. It's worthless and useless for almost everyone aged under about 50. The bleeding white of the young through rents and sky-high taxes on incomes, whilst rich old people are shielded and mollycoddled through the lenient tax treatment of assets and the gold-plating of universal pension benefits, is all by design.

Broadly speaking, young workers must be impoverished to subsidise luxury spending by the majority of the grey vote that owns property and still votes Tory, and to ensure that the estates of said elderly can be passed on intact when they die. It's all about the ossification of social strata, the redistribution of wealth upwards, and the preservation of inheritances: government by and for the landed gentry. Whether you call it the Gerontocracy or Neo-Hanoverianism, it's undoubtedly a thing.

Quite so: one only need read the postings of our village Tory about the importance of preserving the IHT allowances.

Those allowances seem more and more bizarre in contrast to CGT where the allowances are getting smaller and smaller every year, 12K to 6K to 3K. So if one wants to cash in on one's savings to buy a house, and they include shares, one is stung. This may well be necessary for the public finances - but bu the same token, giving Tory-voting Home Counties (most of all) retirees and their middle aged children this huge bribe is looking more and more unconscionable.

Foxy

Penddu2 said:

Chris said:

From the BBC:
"Boris Johnson has been warned public funding for his legal representation to the Covid inquiry could be withdrawn if he tries to "undermine" the government. "

It was bad enough that the taxpayer was funding Johnson's defence of his crimes in the first place. But now the government is using that funding to try to force him to back its defiance of the law?

Standards in public life are at sub-banana-republic level in this country now.

Isnt this a massive conflict of interest ??? Support the government (in their enquiry) and we will cover your legal costs....if not we will screw you.

Quite obviously so. Though it isn't obvious why the government should be paying Johnsons costs at all.

Carnyx

DougSeal said:

Penddu2 said:

kamski said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems."

Begins Rowan Atkinson. I'm assuming his degrees were done in the 1970s. The fact that he thinks this gives him some current expertise on electric vehicles already makes the rest of the article unlikely to be worth reading. Why didn't the Guardian get someone who actually knows something to write on this? I guess Guardian readers are sick of experts and prefer celebrity clickbait.

I have a degree in Civil Engineering - which is almost as completely applicable today as it was when I did it. But if you studied Electronics (or computing or biotechnology etc) then its applicability degrades rapidly with time - If you are not working in the field and staying up to date with technology you might as well have a degree in history (which has always been worthless)

Yes. As I sit here in my hovel, with only the meagre takings of a partner in a City law firm to tide me over, I think to myself, “it all went wrong when I decided to do history”.

"Then let this be our treat"
the Walrus said with a bow
"We could rustle up some oysters
I'm sure that we know how".

Foxy

Andy_Cooke said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

And that manufacturing emissions depend on where it is built (mainly the carbon intensity of the electricity grid), and manufacturers are shifting production of EVs to countries with lower emissions already (eg Audi).

Bloomberg did the sums a few years back. Total carbon cost per country. It is as little as 25 000 km of usage in France, but even works out in China.

pigeon

The revolution eats its children...

A school district in the US state of Utah has removed the Bible from elementary and middle schools for containing "vulgarity and violence".

The move follows a complaint from a parent that the King James Bible has material unsuitable for children.

Utah's Republican government passed a law in 2022 banning "pornographic or indecent" books from schools.

Most of the books that have been banned so far pertain to topics such as sexual orientation and identity.

The banning of the Bible comes amid a larger effort by US conservatives in states to ban teachings on controversial topics such as LGBT rights and racial identity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65794363

JosiasJessop

Penddu2 said:

kamski said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems."

Begins Rowan Atkinson. I'm assuming his degrees were done in the 1970s. The fact that he thinks this gives him some current expertise on electric vehicles already makes the rest of the article unlikely to be worth reading. Why didn't the Guardian get someone who actually knows something to write on this? I guess Guardian readers are sick of experts and prefer celebrity clickbait.

I have a degree in Civil Engineering - which is almost as completely applicable today as it was when I did it. But if you studied Electronics (or computing or biotechnology etc) then its applicability degrades rapidly with time - If you are not working in the field and staying up to date with technology you might as well have a degree in history (which has always been worthless)

Yes and no.

I'm probably not going to go back into the software engineering industry, but the fundamentals don't really change: if you can write good C code, and are good at following development processes, then you can pick up other languages quite easily (even better if you can do asm). I'm more than a little rusty, and my brain perhaps a little less sharp than it was, but I've little doubt I could join a team doing C/C++ and be productive in a month or two. About the same time I'd expect a graduate to become productive in a medium-sized team.

Electronics has also changed massively, but the fundamentals are also the same as they were. Some chip design software is updated to cope with new processes, but the underlying software is apparently fairly static for years (e.g. Cadence, I think).

The fundamentals in engineering rarely change, even if the details rapidly change. And someone who 'knows' a language but is cruddy at the fundamentals will never be a good engineer until they get the fundamentals done.

IME what does change very rapidly is IT - a friend of mine in the mid-1990s said about a third of his knowledge became redundant every year, as systems and OSs changed rapidly.

Miklosvar

Penddu2 said:

Chris said:

From the BBC:
"Boris Johnson has been warned public funding for his legal representation to the Covid inquiry could be withdrawn if he tries to "undermine" the government. "

It was bad enough that the taxpayer was funding Johnson's defence of his crimes in the first place. But now the government is using that funding to try to force him to back its defiance of the law?

Standards in public life are at sub-banana-republic level in this country now.

Isnt this a massive conflict of interest ??? Support the government (in their enquiry) and we will cover your legal costs....if not we will screw you.

Yes. I have just had to look up who is AG (Victoria Prentis apparently) and she should have put her foot down over the sheer not-onness of this.

Alanbrooke

Foxy said:

Penddu2 said:

Chris said:

From the BBC:
"Boris Johnson has been warned public funding for his legal representation to the Covid inquiry could be withdrawn if he tries to "undermine" the government. "

It was bad enough that the taxpayer was funding Johnson's defence of his crimes in the first place. But now the government is using that funding to try to force him to back its defiance of the law?

Standards in public life are at sub-banana-republic level in this country now.

Isnt this a massive conflict of interest ??? Support the government (in their enquiry) and we will cover your legal costs....if not we will screw you.

Quite obviously so. Though it isn't obvious why the government should be paying Johnsons costs at all.

For the same reason they paid Blairs legal costs on Chilcott

NickPalmer

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

bondegezou

Foxy said:

Penddu2 said:

Chris said:

From the BBC:
"Boris Johnson has been warned public funding for his legal representation to the Covid inquiry could be withdrawn if he tries to "undermine" the government. "

It was bad enough that the taxpayer was funding Johnson's defence of his crimes in the first place. But now the government is using that funding to try to force him to back its defiance of the law?

Standards in public life are at sub-banana-republic level in this country now.

Isnt this a massive conflict of interest ??? Support the government (in their enquiry) and we will cover your legal costs....if not we will screw you.

Quite obviously so. Though it isn't obvious why the government should be paying Johnsons costs at all.

The Govt is covering the legal fees of everyone who was part of, employed by or even doing unpaid work for the Govt who has been asked to give evidence by the Inquiry, AFAIK. I think that’s reasonable.

The Inquiry is not a criminal investigation: it’s a public inquiry. But it has legal powers over witnesses, who can thus benefit from legal advice.

Alphabet_Soup

There seems to be no shortage of new-build housing here in mid-Warwickshire and if it wasn't for Labour MP Matt Western there's be even more:

https://www.warwickshireworld.com/news/people/leamington-mps-delight-as-plans-for-houses-between-whitnash-and-sydenham-are-paused-4141324

Thank God for Socialism, I say.

BlancheLivermore

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

My very rough reckoning was that each tanker carries 25,000 litres (and 500 in the lorry)

So to do 100,000 miles you'd need a fuel efficiency of 62.5 l/100km (so 100,000 litres would take you 160,000 km), or 4.51mpg

Looking just at the final, fourth tanker stage (when you've dumped the three empty ones), you've got a fairly standard HGV

And..

"Whilst modern diesel cars can easily achieve upwards of 50mpg on the motorway, lorries (otherwise known as HGVs and artics) achieve nothing like that. In 2003, data from the Department for Transport showed that the average ‘miles per gallon’ of an artic weighing over 33t was 7.6mpg. In 2015, that fuel consumption figure jumped to 7.9mpg, an incremental increase of 0.3mpg. And, for those of you whose brain’s[sic] work in litres/100km, that means that a modern lorry consumes 29.774 litres of fuel per 100km"
https://mwtruckparts.co.uk/what-fuel-economy-mpg-does-a-lorry-get

So a 25,000 litre fuel tank should carry a full fuel tanker (it would obviously actually get lighter and more efficient) over 83,000 km, so over 50,000 miles, on average - if you used the most efficient truck and drove super steady on flat roads, you might even be able to get 100,000 miles just out of one fuel tanker

Even working with that average and using 50,000 miles from the one tanker, the added ones could get half as efficient for the second one, a third for the third and a quarter for the fourth, as pulling two, three and four times the mass and you'd get (50 + 25 + 16.6 + 12.5) 104,200 miles, and I'm sure that the fuel consumption would be far less affected than that..

And how far would an unladen HGV go on 500 litres of fuel? If it could do 20mpg, that would take it over 2,000 miles

felix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election

More Spanish election polling and all show growing leads for PP compared to their previous polls before the locals. Still no sign of an absolute majority but PSOE are not close even if all the minority parties except Vox supported them - which they won't

NickPalmer

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

Yes, it's a flaw in the school of Tory thought that fighting a culture war is the way to win. The subtext that comes across is "We hate a lot of you, especially the young", and that's voter-repellent in many areas - people may not feel they're the target, but they don't like their kids being targeted either for being renters or gay or whatever.

It's also a trap for far-lefties, as their message can sound like "You're all racist gammons". Anger in a political message is often counter-productive, if you're trying to win a majority. Conversely you can win people for quite radical ideas if you put them mildly - "The monarchy has been a stabilising factor in Britain, but perhaps it's time to consider moving on to electing a non-partisan president for ceremonial things", rather than "Down with the bloodsucking royals!"

Foxy

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

kamski

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

To be fair, Atkinson does go through cars fairly quickly - apparently a car with his ownership in the book sells for more than the original purchase price.

Exactly, he's a massive hypocrite and/or completely out of touch with how most people live. I would say he should stick to the comedy but I find Mr Bean totally unfunny, and its mystifying success reflects badly on human beings as a species.

kamski

DougSeal said:

kamski said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems."

Begins Rowan Atkinson. I'm assuming his degrees were done in the 1970s. The fact that he thinks this gives him some current expertise on electric vehicles already makes the rest of the article unlikely to be worth reading. Why didn't the Guardian get someone who actually knows something to write on this? I guess Guardian readers are sick of experts and prefer celebrity clickbait.

He does qualify his statement with “in theory”.

But then unqualifies again it by writing a somewhat silly and misleading article on the subject.

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

Nah, that's just something Wokies say; it's normally followed by the words, "stop fighting a culture war".

The Tories have called the big shots right on that - the one thing they have - from rejecting iconoclasm, legislating for free speech rights in university, checking "trans" lunacy, and rejecting identity politics.

The Tories are losing due to incompetence, venality, the economy and for failing to deliver for their base.

The rest has nothing to do with it, except to motivate the activist Left.

SandyRentool

Good morning all.


Sorry, but I don't follow TSE's thinking.

Labour does better among renters than owner occupiers, so why would turning renters into owner occupiers be to our advantage?
The buggers will just start reading the Mail and voting Tory!

Casino_Royale

On topic, shitting on housing is the one guaranteed way to lose British elections.

It's a big reason (possibly the biggest reason) why Thatcher won in 1979, why Blair won in 1997, why Brown lost in 2010, why May almost lost in 2017 and why the Tories very probably will lose next year.

Foxy

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

Yes, it's a flaw in the school of Tory thought that fighting a culture war is the way to win. The subtext that comes across is "We hate a lot of you, especially the young", and that's voter-repellent in many areas - people may not feel they're the target, but they don't like their kids being targeted either for being renters or gay or whatever.

It's also a trap for far-lefties, as their message can sound like "You're all racist gammons". Anger in a political message is often counter-productive, if you're trying to win a majority. Conversely you can win people for quite radical ideas if you put them mildly - "The monarchy has been a stabilising factor in Britain, but perhaps it's time to consider moving on to electing a non-partisan president for ceremonial things", rather than "Down with the bloodsucking royals!"

This FT article on why Tories are so unhappy merits a re-read. It is outside the paywall to me.

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1663915164410822657?t=SyDHXYMk6HW2nlDNPuBR_Q&s=19

Essentially, in order to "get Brexit done" the Tories had to win over a lot of socially Conservative voters, who are economically in favour of higher government spending. They have abandoned not just the young, but also economic free marketeers.

They are now stuck with this as their voter base, and cannot change without alienating their few remaining voters.

bondegezou

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

Nah, that's just something Wokies say; it's normally followed by the words, "stop fighting a culture war".

The Tories have called the big shots right on that - the one thing they have - from rejecting iconoclasm, legislating for free speech rights in university, checking "trans" lunacy, and rejecting identity politics.

The Tories are losing due to incompetence, venality, the economy and for failing to deliver for their base.

The rest has nothing to do with it, except to motivate the activist Left.

DeSantis in Florida believes the way to fight the culture war is to ban books in school, and ban what can be taught in universities. Conservatives here look up to him. So I find it hard to believe that free speech in universities is going to be protected by a culture war-led Tory party.

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

The Tesla charging system needs to be experienced to understand what is possible. The map/routing system works out the charging plan for you, the car even gets the battery to the ideal charging temperature as you approach the charging point. Then you just plug the car in.

The other companies doing charging points seem to think that the methods for purchasing street parking are too simple and user friendly. You get the distinct impression they don’t want to sell you any leccy.

Foxy

kamski said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

To be fair, Atkinson does go through cars fairly quickly - apparently a car with his ownership in the book sells for more than the original purchase price.

Exactly, he's a massive hypocrite and/or completely out of touch with how most people live. I would say he should stick to the comedy but I find Mr Bean totally unfunny, and its mystifying success reflects badly on human beings as a species.

A bit like how Steve Coogan dislikes his Alan Partridge character, I don't think Atkinson likes his Mr Bean invention. Unfortunately for them though, that is what the punters want more of.

Malmesbury

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

Penddu2 said:

Chris said:

From the BBC:
"Boris Johnson has been warned public funding for his legal representation to the Covid inquiry could be withdrawn if he tries to "undermine" the government. "

It was bad enough that the taxpayer was funding Johnson's defence of his crimes in the first place. But now the government is using that funding to try to force him to back its defiance of the law?

Standards in public life are at sub-banana-republic level in this country now.

Isnt this a massive conflict of interest ??? Support the government (in their enquiry) and we will cover your legal costs....if not we will screw you.

Quite obviously so. Though it isn't obvious why the government should be paying Johnsons costs at all.

For the same reason they paid Blairs legal costs on Chilcott

In one episode of The West Wing, the White House Counsel tells Charlie, the Presidents gopher guy, that he will need $500K of lawyers to see him through the investigation of a presidential scandal. Just for being a bystander.

BlancheLivermore

I was rather tickled and did giggle on seeing that a major Trans rights legal action going on in Oz is Tickle v Giggle (Roxi Tickle, a transwoman; Giggle, an Oz based, women only social media)
https://gigglecrowdfund.com/

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

Nah, that's just something Wokies say; it's normally followed by the words, "stop fighting a culture war".

The Tories have called the big shots right on that - the one thing they have - from rejecting iconoclasm, legislating for free speech rights in university, checking "trans" lunacy, and rejecting identity politics.

The Tories are losing due to incompetence, venality, the economy and for failing to deliver for their base.

The rest has nothing to do with it, except to motivate the activist Left.

What many Tories consider woke many others just consider live and let live. You may have a narrow definition of it, a number of Tory MPs and media commentators expand it to include things like working from home. But it’s not just woke. Every time a Tory MP attacks Remainers or talks of Remainer plots, that’s sending a very clear message to millions and millions of people. Yes, there are people who talk equally disdainfully about Leavers, but none of them are MPs.

DougSeal

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

Nah, that's just something Wokies say; it's normally followed by the words, "stop fighting a culture war".

The Tories have called the big shots right on that - the one thing they have - from rejecting iconoclasm, legislating for free speech rights in university, checking "trans" lunacy, and rejecting identity politics.

The Tories are losing due to incompetence, venality, the economy and for failing to deliver for their base.

The rest has nothing to do with it, except to motivate the activist Left.

Bollocks. The Tories are fine with identity politics so long as you identify as English and Old. Fine with free speech so long as you agree with them - the Orwellian Online Safety bill criminalises speech that may cause ‘psychological harm’ without defining it. So anyone posting online something within the ever shifting sands of “woke” (ie anything critical of the Conservative Party - it has no other meaning) could face criminal sanction.

Identify as anything but Tory, advocate for anything but Tory, and you are criminalised. The Tories INVENTED identity politics and destruction of free speech. It is their raison d’etre.

Foxy

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am not sure that home ownership on its own will make much difference. The Tories seem to have lost touch with much of modern Britain. Too many of them give the impression they just don’t like the country they have spent the last 13 years governing or a large proportion of the people who live in it. That seems to me to be the bigger problem.

Nah, that's just something Wokies say; it's normally followed by the words, "stop fighting a culture war".

The Tories have called the big shots right on that - the one thing they have - from rejecting iconoclasm, legislating for free speech rights in university, checking "trans" lunacy, and rejecting identity politics.

The Tories are losing due to incompetence, venality, the economy and for failing to deliver for their base.

The rest has nothing to do with it, except to motivate the activist Left.

DeSantis in Florida believes the way to fight the culture war is to ban books in school, and ban what can be taught in universities. Conservatives here look up to him. So I find it hard to believe that free speech in universities is going to be protected by a culture war-led Tory party.

Yes, the idea that this government supports free speech is risible. It only supports it when sounding like a right wing shock-jock. It can arrest you on "Sus" if it has the slightest whiff of you wanting to express a view in public.

LostPassword

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

Although replacing the battery of an electric car after ~10 years is a bigger chunk of extra emissions than during a new clutch in an ICE car. But I guess the solution there is to use renewable energy for the battery production process.

SandyRentool

BlancheLivermore said:

I was rather tickled and did giggle on seeing that a major Trans rights legal action going on in Oz is Tickle v Giggle (Roxi Tickle, a transwoman; Giggle, an Oz based, women only social media)
https://gigglecrowdfund.com/

So even Mr Men characters are now going trans?

HYUFD

Homeowners almost certainly includes those with a mortgage, so would reflect the fact the key 40-65 year old demographic which voted Tory in 2019 has now switched to Starmer Labour as polls show. Those who own their homes outright are likely still voting Tory though as the Tories still lead with over 65s in polls. Labour still ahead with renters as in 2019

HYUFD

felix said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election

More Spanish election polling and all show growing leads for PP compared to their previous polls before the locals. Still no sign of an absolute majority but PSOE are not close even if all the minority parties except Vox supported them - which they won't

Looks like by July both Italy and Spain will have hard right governments then. The Anglo Saxon world may be shifting to the centre left, Southern Europe though clearly shifting right

MarqueeMark

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I was rather tickled and did giggle on seeing that a major Trans rights legal action going on in Oz is Tickle v Giggle (Roxi Tickle, a transwoman; Giggle, an Oz based, women only social media)
https://gigglecrowdfund.com/

So even Mr Men characters are now going trans?

Mr Mrs?

HYUFD

Starmer accused of preparing for class war if Labour win the next general election by shifting public spending on GPs, libraries and bin collections from richer to poorer areas. Equality laws would also be extended to include social class
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12156193/Secret-plan-Starmer-hit-cutting-public-services.html

DavidL

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

285 miles is less than half of what I get in my Jag so it is still quite a negative factor, especially when the charging time is significantly longer than filling up with fuel.

We do not have the infrastructure for EVs yet, certainly in Scotland where there is a lot of empty spaces and range can cause anxiety even in an ICE vehicle. I will be buying a new car in the next 18 months and I would like it to be electric but I am still needing persuaded it is going to work. Will the government or the market assuage these fears by the time I buy? I am not seeing much sign of it.

Miklosvar

kamski said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

To be fair, Atkinson does go through cars fairly quickly - apparently a car with his ownership in the book sells for more than the original purchase price.

Exactly, he's a massive hypocrite and/or completely out of touch with how most people live. I would say he should stick to the comedy but I find Mr Bean totally unfunny, and its mystifying success reflects badly on human beings as a species.

It is mystifying, because blackadder at its best is superlatively good.

Malmesbury

kamski said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

To be fair, Atkinson does go through cars fairly quickly - apparently a car with his ownership in the book sells for more than the original purchase price.

Exactly, he's a massive hypocrite and/or completely out of touch with how most people live. I would say he should stick to the comedy but I find Mr Bean totally unfunny, and its mystifying success reflects badly on human beings as a species.

It's not that - what he misses is that when people change cars, the old car is rarely scrapped. Unless it is utterly wrecked.

Even with the ULEZ stuff, the cars are simply transferred to markets that are not ULEZ.

DougSeal

HYUFD said:

Starmer accused of preparing for class war if Labour winning the next general election by shifting public spending on GPs, libraries and bin collections from richer to poorer areas. Equality laws would also be extended to include social class
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12156193/Secret-plan-Starmer-hit-cutting-public-services.html

The Mail is accusing Starmer of a bad thing? Say it ain’t so…

DavidL

SandyRentool said:

Good morning all.


Sorry, but I don't follow TSE's thinking.

Labour does better among renters than owner occupiers, so why would turning renters into owner occupiers be to our advantage?
The buggers will just start reading the Mail and voting Tory!

TSE's thinking is the reverse: that a Tory government should be doing everything in their power to boost home ownership for the reasons you describe. He's right but it's too late.

Malmesbury

LostPassword said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

Although replacing the battery of an electric car after ~10 years is a bigger chunk of extra emissions than during a new clutch in an ICE car. But I guess the solution there is to use renewable energy for the battery production process.

Plenty of people have found they have 80-90% of battery capacity left after a decade.

The early predictions about batterie dying quickly were based on batteries not being water cooled. It is the temperature excursions (especially when charging) kill the batteries quickly.

I think pretty much every manufacturer has gone with water cooling the batteries, now.

Foxy

LostPassword said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

Although replacing the battery of an electric car after ~10 years is a bigger chunk of extra emissions than during a new clutch in an ICE car. But I guess the solution there is to use renewable energy for the battery production process.

I think battery fade is greatly exaggerated too. My Kia hasn't noticeably dropped in 3 years of usage.

And you do also need to factor in the reducing price of batteries. By the time they need replacing it is likely that they will be significantly cheaper, and with little wear elsewhere, it is also likely that the life of the car could extend to far longer than an ICE car.

Taz

Miklosvar said:

kamski said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

By the way, I'm sure you all saw it, and probably commented on here ad nauseam, but Rowan Atkinson's article yesterday was excellent:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

The big flaw is that lifetime emissions (from actually driving it) dominate the emissions that a car produces.

Yes, and in the article he appears to assume that we all buy brand new cars and then scrap them after 3 years.

To be fair, Atkinson does go through cars fairly quickly - apparently a car with his ownership in the book sells for more than the original purchase price.

Exactly, he's a massive hypocrite and/or completely out of touch with how most people live. I would say he should stick to the comedy but I find Mr Bean totally unfunny, and its mystifying success reflects badly on human beings as a species.

It is mystifying, because blackadder at its best is superlatively good.

It’s as funny as a vegetable that’s grown into a rude and amusing shape.

OldKingCole

HYUFD said:

felix said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election

More Spanish election polling and all show growing leads for PP compared to their previous polls before the locals. Still no sign of an absolute majority but PSOE are not close even if all the minority parties except Vox supported them - which they won't

Looks like by July both Italy and Spain will have hard right governments then. The Anglo Saxon world may be shifting to the centre left, Southern Europe though clearly shifting right

The Anglo-Saxon world? What’s that? I’m not sure that even England qualifies as ‘Anglo-Saxon’ now.

LostPassword

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

It's a monumental failure that governments have set a deadline to ban sales of ICE cars, but have failed to implement a massive project to build charging points anywhere and everywhere.

The latter is so obviously a precondition for the former.

OnlyLivingBoy

HYUFD said:

Starmer accused of preparing for class war if Labour win the next general election by shifting public spending on GPs, libraries and bin collections from richer to poorer areas. Equality laws would also be extended to include social class
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12156193/Secret-plan-Starmer-hit-cutting-public-services.html

But when Osborne said poor people shouldn't have kids and when Sunak boasted about diverting money to richer areas that wasn't class war at all. The Tories love class war, they just don't want the other side to fight it.

Foxy

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

285 miles is less than half of what I get in my Jag so it is still quite a negative factor, especially when the charging time is significantly longer than filling up with fuel.

We do not have the infrastructure for EVs yet, certainly in Scotland where there is a lot of empty spaces and range can cause anxiety even in an ICE vehicle. I will be buying a new car in the next 18 months and I would like it to be electric but I am still needing persuaded it is going to work. Will the government or the market assuage these fears by the time I buy? I am not seeing much sign of it.

Norway is bigger and more rural than Scotland, yet 80% of new car sales there are full electric. It is completely practical if a government is interested.

(An interesting policy too for Europe's biggest oil producer)

DougSeal

HYUFD said:

Starmer accused of preparing for class war if Labour win the next general election by shifting public spending on GPs, libraries and bin collections from richer to poorer areas. Equality laws would also be extended to include social class
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12156193/Secret-plan-Starmer-hit-cutting-public-services.html

Are you a language model like ChatGPT?

SandyRentool

DavidL said:

SandyRentool said:

Good morning all.


Sorry, but I don't follow TSE's thinking.

Labour does better among renters than owner occupiers, so why would turning renters into owner occupiers be to our advantage?
The buggers will just start reading the Mail and voting Tory!

TSE's thinking is the reverse: that a Tory government should be doing everything in their power to boost home ownership for the reasons you describe. He's right but it's too late.

Having reread the header I now realise that I was talking bollocks.

Thank you for pointing this out in such a polite manner.

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Starmer accused of preparing for class war if Labour win the next general election by shifting public spending on GPs, libraries and bin collections from richer to poorer areas. Equality laws would also be extended to include social class
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12156193/Secret-plan-Starmer-hit-cutting-public-services.html

I think class discrimination is probably now a bigger problem than other forms of discrimination in the UK, but defining it in a way that Equalities law is effective is much more problematic. Social class is much more fluid and changeable than other protected characteristics.

RochdalePioneers

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

I got back yesterday after 5 days on the road in my Tesla Model Y. Charging stops almost always combined with meetings - both at customer sites and sat in the back of the car using it as an office. Had to haul various boxes around for part of the trip before acquiring a big heavy box which filled the boot for the trip home from Sheffield.

Charging just isn't any more of a consideration than when I had Outlander PHEVs and was needing to plan supermarket petrol stops every 300 miles.

Malmesbury

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer accused of preparing for class war if Labour win the next general election by shifting public spending on GPs, libraries and bin collections from richer to poorer areas. Equality laws would also be extended to include social class
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12156193/Secret-plan-Starmer-hit-cutting-public-services.html

Are you a language model like ChatGPT?

The slight problem with the whole "richer areas" narrative is that there are pockets of poverty everywhere.

We don't have the French system of the Districts - so we don't have all the poor people nicely corralled behind some motorways.

A sensible anti-poverty program would increase the granularity at which it looks for poverty.

kjh

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

285 miles is less than half of what I get in my Jag so it is still quite a negative factor, especially when the charging time is significantly longer than filling up with fuel.

We do not have the infrastructure for EVs yet, certainly in Scotland where there is a lot of empty spaces and range can cause anxiety even in an ICE vehicle. I will be buying a new car in the next 18 months and I would like it to be electric but I am still needing persuaded it is going to work. Will the government or the market assuage these fears by the time I buy? I am not seeing much sign of it.

Norway is bigger and more rural than Scotland, yet 80% of new car sales there are full electric. It is completely practical if a government is interested.

(An interesting policy too for Europe's biggest oil producer)

We needed to replace our car (13 years old and with issues). I wanted my next car to be electric particularly as we keep our cars for 10+ years. However the restriction of an EV made it too difficult. We bought a hybrid instead. If it had been our small run around I would definitely have gone electric, but our current one is still in perfect nick, albeit 10 years old.

CorrectHorseBat

30 point lead! Thanks Redfield

SandyRentool

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

285 miles is less than half of what I get in my Jag so it is still quite a negative factor, especially when the charging time is significantly longer than filling up with fuel.

We do not have the infrastructure for EVs yet, certainly in Scotland where there is a lot of empty spaces and range can cause anxiety even in an ICE vehicle. I will be buying a new car in the next 18 months and I would like it to be electric but I am still needing persuaded it is going to work. Will the government or the market assuage these fears by the time I buy? I am not seeing much sign of it.

Norway is bigger and more rural than Scotland, yet 80% of new car sales there are full electric. It is completely practical if a government is interested.

(An interesting policy too for Europe's biggest oil producer)

Better for them to increase demand for hydro power from EVs and free up more hydrocarbons for export.

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

285 miles is less than half of what I get in my Jag so it is still quite a negative factor, especially when the charging time is significantly longer than filling up with fuel.

We do not have the infrastructure for EVs yet, certainly in Scotland where there is a lot of empty spaces and range can cause anxiety even in an ICE vehicle. I will be buying a new car in the next 18 months and I would like it to be electric but I am still needing persuaded it is going to work. Will the government or the market assuage these fears by the time I buy? I am not seeing much sign of it.

Norway is bigger and more rural than Scotland, yet 80% of new car sales there are full electric. It is completely practical if a government is interested.

(An interesting policy too for Europe's biggest oil producer)

A large chunk of that is that Norway has savage taxes on cars. Which were entirely omitted for electric cars. So a Tesla Model S was a cheap option from the moment it appeared.

SouthamObserver

HYUFD said:

felix said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election

More Spanish election polling and all show growing leads for PP compared to their previous polls before the locals. Still no sign of an absolute majority but PSOE are not close even if all the minority parties except Vox supported them - which they won't

Looks like by July both Italy and Spain will have hard right governments then. The Anglo Saxon world may be shifting to the centre left, Southern Europe though clearly shifting right

A PP/Vox coalition is very unlikely in Spain. The likeliest scenario is a PP minority with Vox support to get big ticket items like the budget through. The PP surge is largely down to the collapse of Ciudadanos, the centrist party that got 16% in the last GE but is not competing in the July one. A formal PP/Vox pact at national level would alienate too many former C’s voters for PP to contemplate it.

DecrepiterJohnL

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I was rather tickled and did giggle on seeing that a major Trans rights legal action going on in Oz is Tickle v Giggle (Roxi Tickle, a transwoman; Giggle, an Oz based, women only social media)
https://gigglecrowdfund.com/

So even Mr Men characters are now going trans?

Mr Mrs?

That is how they are known in France.
.

Foxy

LostPassword said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

It's a monumental failure that governments have set a deadline to ban sales of ICE cars, but have failed to implement a massive project to build charging points anywhere and everywhere.

The latter is so obviously a precondition for the former.

To be fair, this government is belatedly working on charging infrastructure. The number of chargers in the UK increased by 37% last year, and increasingly they are fast chargers too like BP Pulse.

There is an obvious chicken and egg issue, but EVs are increasingly practical for ordinary folk.

Miklosvar

DavidL said:

SandyRentool said:

Good morning all.


Sorry, but I don't follow TSE's thinking.

Labour does better among renters than owner occupiers, so why would turning renters into owner occupiers be to our advantage?
The buggers will just start reading the Mail and voting Tory!

TSE's thinking is the reverse: that a Tory government should be doing everything in their power to boost home ownership for the reasons you describe. He's right but it's too late.

"too late" is not the point. It isn't that they never got round to it, they were never allowed to do it because nimbyism.

Foxy

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

285 miles is less than half of what I get in my Jag so it is still quite a negative factor, especially when the charging time is significantly longer than filling up with fuel.

We do not have the infrastructure for EVs yet, certainly in Scotland where there is a lot of empty spaces and range can cause anxiety even in an ICE vehicle. I will be buying a new car in the next 18 months and I would like it to be electric but I am still needing persuaded it is going to work. Will the government or the market assuage these fears by the time I buy? I am not seeing much sign of it.

Norway is bigger and more rural than Scotland, yet 80% of new car sales there are full electric. It is completely practical if a government is interested.

(An interesting policy too for Europe's biggest oil producer)

A large chunk of that is that Norway has savage taxes on cars. Which were entirely omitted for electric cars. So a Tesla Model S was a cheap option from the moment it appeared.

Electrification is their policy, and that is a major factor. It shows what can be done if a government has the will, and isn't bogged down by a myriad of culture war distractions.

RochdalePioneers

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Yes, ICE cars will always have the edge when it comes to range. But there's diminishing utility here. It's dead easy to add another 100 miles to a petrol car's range. But how much better is a car that goes 700 miles between a top-up and one that goes 800 miles?

I reckon you could do over a hundred thousand miles in one of these

It would interesting to look at the range equation, since you are hauling more weight to get the range….

EVs are already down to 15 minute top ups every so often - the trick is *not* to drive to empty and fill to 100%.

It's all about planning your trip.

My Leaf is great for local trips, and I usually change it once a week or so from about 20% to 80% on my home charger.

Every now and again though, I have to make a longer trip down to Oxford. In theory, the car could just about make it there and back, but it would be pretty tight. So what I do is charge it to 100% at home before travelling, then stop for half an hour at the rapid charging hub near Banbury for a coffee and a top-up. This adds enough range to make it comfortably the rest of the way there and back home again.

Yes, friends have EVs and do this sort of calculation all the time. For me, as someone who'd like to electric for environmental reasons, it's very alienating. When I can find somewhere to top up quickly anywhere in the country, as is the case with petrol, then i'll switch, but otherwise only if forced to. I'm not proud of that attitude, but if it's how a green leftie like me thinks, it must reflect quite a lot of folk.

Range anxiety fades very quickly when buying an EV if buying a contemporary model like my Kia eniro which does 285 miles on a full charge, pretty similar to a full tank in my old car. I charge overnight in my own driveway on low tariff electricity every couple of weeks.

It's 185 miles to go to the IOW, so comfortably within range, and a return trip to London is so too, so in 3 years of ownership I have only used public chargers 3 times. Obviously more problematic if you don't have your own drive, but 60% of car owners do.

I think the Government is right to switch the EV subsidy from car purchase to expanding the charging network in order to make EVs more practical for everyone. If (like parking) there was a single app or electronic payment system it would be very helpful too.

Modern EVs are really not a hairshirt experience. They are smooth and powerful, with outstanding acceleration compared to ICE cars, and near zero maintenance.

285 miles is less than half of what I get in my Jag so it is still quite a negative factor, especially when the charging time is significantly longer than filling up with fuel.

We do not have the infrastructure for EVs yet, certainly in Scotland where there is a lot of empty spaces and range can cause anxiety even in an ICE vehicle. I will be buying a new car in the next 18 months and I would like it to be electric but I am still needing persuaded it is going to work. Will the government or the market assuage these fears by the time I buy? I am not seeing much sign of it.

Most of you car charging will happen when you are asleep. Your 560+ mile Jaaaaag range - how often do you drive that distance non-stop?

Foxy

CorrectHorseBat said:

30 point lead! Thanks Redfield

Ooh, do please link. The last one that I can see was a mere 15 point lead.