I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
Off topic, and while having the women’s football World Cup on the other side of the world is not ideal time-wise, I quite enjoyed watching Switzerland v Phillipines over breakfast this morning (vegan haggis in a bagel).
That Tories will want to weaponise that Uxbridge result. The problem is, the Tories are committed to banning new ICEs from 2030 (I know that’s to do with climate rather than air quality, but it’s the same effect). I wonder if they might now ditch that and dare Labour to keep that pledge.
It's not an ICE ban as PHEVs will still be available until 2035. There probably won't be any pure ICE offerings from any major OEMs anyway by then so it's irrelevant what this scumbag government does or doesn't do on the issue.
Here in Spain I've hired my usual Fiat Panda. Except this is a new one with the mild hybrid system. Which is *interesting*. Previous 1.2 4-pot replaced by 1.0 3-pot turbo with a bigger battery and now 6 gears.
What that means is that instead of a drivetrain which would run forever, we have a ludicrous thing with a power band absurdly narrow. And a nagging indicator for when you should change gear. Which isn't when it says. And the mild hybrid? As well as cutting the engine at traffic lights, it also advises you to coast in neutral - again with the engine off.
Frankly they have ruined a thoroughly good car. I am an advocate for proper hybrids and EVs, but this is my first "mild" hybrid and its bloody awful.
Good morning, one and all. Interesting set up by election results, and of course congratulations.to HYUFC for calling Uxbridge correctly. However, there’s another feature that nobody appears to have commented upon. The LibDem vote in Selby and Uxbridge collapsed as did the Labour vote in the west country. Are we actually seeing tactical voting?
What it shows is how Khan (and Burnham) have trapped themselves. Getting out of the Commons and getting some executive power seemed a no brainer when Labour were self destructing under that idiot Corbyn and it allowed them to avoid collateral damage but now, with Labour on the cusp of government, they look like forgotten men who will struggle to get back into front line politics, let alone the cabinet.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
Isn't that a teeny weeny bit depressing, though?
After all, most of those measures are about reducing the harms that cars do. ULEZ attempts to deal with some specific localised air pollution. Reducing speed limits makes accidents less likely and less harmful. That sort of thing. Tilting the balance between the benefits drivers get from driving and the costs that society pays.
One lesson of Uxbridge is that, at least in some seats, that's politically unacceptable. And whilst there's something in the "wrong moment" argument, the experience is that car restraint measures are rarely popular in advance. And there are plenty of other measures that any government is going to have to take in the next few years.
Are will still so pampered as a nation that we're going to spit out any nasty medicine?
The intention of a policy - reduction of pollution - may be good. While the implementation/methodology is bad.
What is politically unacceptable is saying that “those people who are poor and screwed over by this policy - well, the aim of the policy is good. So on consideration, and after some thought FUCK YOU, FUCKERS”.
ULEZ has become, in the eyes of some poorer people, a tax which has little or no cost on the well off. Who own expensive, frequently updated cars. And/Or can afford to life in the areas with the best public transport connections to their white collar jobs and don’t need a vehicle for work.
Something to understand as well. Those with cars in the “next tranche”, that tightening ULEZ will ban, are convinced that the next step is coming very soon and will be done in the same way. So far more than the 10% of car owners with non compliant vehicles are upset about this.
It is perfectly possible to come up with a way to reduce emissions that doesn’t do this. The ULEZ implementation was picked because it was cheap and easy - for the politicians and those running the system. Producer interest vs Consumer.
Good post.
What is most wrong about ULEZ is the haste in which people are being forced to retrospectively revise earlier choices that they were at one time encouraged to make, at enormous cost. It amounts to retrospective taxation.
Owners of pre-2015 diesel vehicles should have been put on notice that they had 5 or so years to change their vehicle, unless it was already say at least 15 years old. That would still have prompted a change of behaviour, but at a pace that was slow enough to avoid financial distress.
And, as you say, in the absence of a reasoned approach to implementation then those whose cars may at this point still be compliant should be very fearful that it won't be long before they'll be next in line.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Driving a bicycle can be very practical for a very large number of journeys. Not every journey, but I'm not a dogmatist who would propose one mode of transport is suitable for every journey.
Here in West Cork I'm finding driving is a lot easier than I ever found it anywhere in Britain. Where the population density is low a car comes into its own. But we visited Bath recently, using public transport when we were there this time - on a previous visit we'd driven, and in any sort of reasonably-sized urban area, using a car becomes nightmarish, and there are much better options.
My recommendation to you is to drive to the West of Ireland for a holiday. Experience the freedom of driving on roads where the worst traffic you have to worry about is an occasional tractor, or herd of cows. Then take yourself off for a holiday somewhere with good cycling infrastructure - some European city - and enjoy the freedom of being able to explore a city by bicycle, without having to battle the hassle of urban driving.
I think it would give you a broader perspective. You have a very narrow focus on car driving, and cannot imagine anything different.
When we were in Valencia, my son commented on the number of middle-aged women riding bicycles in normal clothes, obviously simply using a bike to get from A to B. Having grown up in the UK, it was something of a novelty to him that bikes could actually be used as practical transport by a wide range of people and not just for recreation by sporty types.
I remember chatting with a Danish colleague who had just bought an e-bike. I said “but isn’t that a cheat, surely the point of riding the bike to work is to get more exercise?” And he looked at me confused and said “the point of a bike is to get from a to b, isn’t it?”
I want to express my thanks to HYUFD for his canvassing report.
It prompted me to put £50 on the Conservatives to hold Uxbridge, at 9-1.
Great bet!
My brother who is left-leaning lives in Kingston and he is MEGA pissed off with Sadiq Khan over Ulez. He has, indeed, just had to change his car.
I'm afraid this is what always happens with socialism ...
Was it socialism when Boris dreamt up the ulez?
It's more the way in which socialist regimes have a tendency to impose what they think is best on other people. Hard Left are just as bad as Hard Right. Possibly worse. Although not a socialist, there were elements of this 'we know best for you little people' attitude on display in Tony Blair's Metropolitan elitism.
As you may know, I'm more of an anarchist. Anti-state. Anti-authority.
Then, maybe the more radical wing of the Liberal Democrats is a better fit for you?
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
Always? If so I don’t suppose you could lend me a few quid to invest in my poppy field…
I want to express my thanks to HYUFD for his canvassing report.
It prompted me to put £50 on the Conservatives to hold Uxbridge, at 9-1.
Quite.
Maybe people should listen to @HYUFD more rather than just take the piss out of him?
He does way more for the party than I do.
Even a stopped clock occasionally tells the right time.
That's not fair. On polling and seat numbers he's usually pretty shrewd.
He's just unable to admit when he's wrong on any other subject and he frequently is, which makes him look silly.
He *can* be right on polling. But he can also endlessly be wrong. Curtice has just laid out the harsh reality that these by-elections show the Tories even further behind than the polls suggested.
HY cherry picks polls to show things aren't that bad actually and if you look here actually you will see the Tories are right actually. Which isn't correct.
Not can we set aside that Mr Holier-than-thou has a defective grasp on the faith he rams into everyone's faces, never mind the moral vacuum where literally any depravity can be supported of there is a vote in it.
He called Uxbridge. Which is insightful! But that doesn't make him right. Because it was ULEZ or if it was Hindu's then it isn't the government and it's 5 People's Priorities which he insists we all have top of mind. Steve Gammon didn't mention them at all in his campaign.
As you say, Curtice has just laid out the harsh reality for the Tories that these by-elections show them even further behind than the polls suggested. And in doing so he very much downplayed the significance of the Uxbridge result on the basis that an unusual local issue came to the fore there.
That's a very different emphasis on the big picture than is found in Mike's thread header, which almost treats Selby as an afterthought. I agree with Curtice.
Even if you ignore the effect of ULEZ, the big picture is this, taking the three by-elections as a whole: In the one by-election that the LDs contested actively, their vote share rose by 28.4% In the two by-elections that Labour contested actively, their vote share rose by an average of 13.7% The Conservatives contested all three by-elections actively, and their vote share fell by an average of 21%.
Basically the electorate are voting for the Anyone-But-Conservative candidate best placed to win. That's backed up by the fact that that Labour lost their deposit in one by election and the LDs in two, which signals that tactical voting against the Conservatives is back on a massive scale. HYUFD may have called Uxbridge right, but last night also showed that when he downplays the likelihood of tactical voting he could not be more wrong.
In 1997 Labour won Selby, the LDs won Somerton and Frome but the Tories held Uxbridge. So the result does show Rishi will at least do no worse than Major did in 1997 rather than the Canada 1993 wipeout Liz was heading for. Still much work to do to get inflation down further though etc
On the swing from last night's by elections as Bart said last night you would think Sir Ed Davey was heading for PM more than Sir Keir. Sir Keir will decide his Selby win with a Blairite youngster but Uxbridge loss with an inner London candidate due to Khan's ULEZ means he needs to ignore the left even more I suspect
Congratulations @HYUFD on Uxbridge. Well spotted re ULEZ. Would be interesting to know if the other factor you mentioned (Hindus) had an impact. Guess we will never really know without a great deal of analysis. Again, well spotted.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
You are talking s***e as usual.
As someone who does 30,000 miles a year I take no s*** from a Sunday driver. I can tell you my worst blackspots. M42 around Solihull. M6 Junction 9 to the M54, the entire M25., the Brynglas Tunnel. I wouldn't dream of driving in central London anymore, Birmingham, an hour from Bristol Street to the M5. I could go on all day. If one needs to make an appointment one cannot rely on the motorcar, and use a smart motorway and if there has been an accident one can be, one, two, three hours late.
It is not the golden age of motoring, that is long gone.
You make my point for me. There's a reason you drive 30k miles a year, its because driving works, and nothing else does.
If one needs to make an appointment, the only thing one can rely upon is the motorcar, in almost the entire country.
Yes traffic may be shit in a few places. Shit happens. I can tell you absolutely eg if there's an accident on the M6, or the M56, or the M62 it can lead to sudden gridlock in towns used as a ratrun to avoid the motorway traffic, or worse a motorway closure.
But despite that, its still by far the best option.
The private motorcar, is in almost all circumstances, like democracy. Its the worst option available - except for all other options that have yet been tried.
But I am telling you it doesn't work. There are too many cars on the road. Private motoring is unsustainable from the practical point of view.
It wasn't like this 50 years ago, although it has been getting considerably worse year on year over the last 40. We are at gridlock. It has to change.
You may enjoy the freedom of the open road from a traffic jam, but I don't.
Here's a novel solution - build more roads.
If roads are at capacity, build extra capacity. Same as any other transportation.
Build new motorways, new roads, wider roads, extra lanes, new bridges - whatever is required.
Yes there's extra people on the roads, that's because *drumroll* there's extra people in the country. We used to have 50 million people in the country, we now have 70 million, but where's the new motorway capacity that has been built to cope with the influx of extra people living here?
I don't enjoy traffic jams, but they're also quite often easy to avoid, especially if you can be flexible with your hours and with modern phones or satnavs giving traffic alerts it can still be quite possible to be driving at reasonable speeds and traffic jams are the exception not the norm for me.
But yes, something has to change, and that something is extra road capacity. Not magicking away cars with pixie dust and pushbikes.
More roads generate more traffic. The M25 is proof in point. And coming from the North West do you never use the series of car parks prefaced with M6. (60, 61, 62 etc, etc) it is chaos for most of the day? P.S. I'd love an M4 Southern Relief Road at Newport, but that would have busted the entire transport budget for Wales for the next five years.
We need to get about, but as someone who uses private transport all day every day, the private car is unsustainable.
The Brynglas section of M4 has been cripplingly under capacity for decades - a bypass really was needed. Or massively ramp up investment to make a public transport solution for local journeys more viable.
But this is Britain. So we do neither. The opportunity then was to drive work from home - cut the number of journeys by any mode. And we've screwed that up as well.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
Essentially, yes. I think that in a few years time we will se significant safety improvements on Welsh roads, and I think opponents are actually - behind the "my personal freedom to do XYZ" smoke-screen - worried that it will be shown to work. Just as LTNs have been working for well over half a century now.
Driving at more than 20mph (or usually less) in residential roads is purely a cultural expectation, and that can change.
One of the UK road safety outliers is the proportion of people killed on our roads who are pedestrians, and a <20mph driving speed is the speed at which mixing of people driving motor vehicles with other road users becomes reasonably safe. And since it is the motor vehicles that are the practical cause of death, it is the motor vehicles that need to be controlled.
I think that in 25 years time those currently defending driving down tight residential streets at 30mph limit plus 5mph speeding allowance will be viewed the same way as those who defended drinking and driving as "I know that I'm safe and it's my right" in 1967, and those who defend handheld mobile phone usage in a not-parked motor vehicle now.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
You're in danger of becoming the kinetic equivalent of the telephone sanitisers in Hitchhiker's Guide. It may add to the growth figures but wastes energy on doing nothing very useful much of the time.
Interesting byelections results. In terms of next year's general election, they don't change anything...
...However, in the long term, it's very disturbing. It demonstrates the kind of opposition which can be rallied to environmental policies and how easily the Conservatives could be seduced into leading it.
I don’t think people object to environmental policies per se, other than a very small band of flat earthers who don’t (at present) have measurable influence.
There are two issues: one is the rush to environmentalism relying on very short termist thinking that doesn’t actually measurably improve things or that will actually be counterproductive in the long term. The second is not selling these things properly and (in many peoples eyes) imposing them with executive fiat.
Interesting byelections results. In terms of next year's general election, they don't change anything...
...However, in the long term, it's very disturbing. It demonstrates the kind of opposition which can be rallied to environmental policies and how easily the Conservatives could be seduced into leading it.
Is ULEZ an environmental issue at the ballot, or a cost of living issue? I think the latter.
If the Tories think this opens the door to an anti-environment strategy for the GE they’re off their collective rocker. This is about brass in pocket, is will the GE be.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
The council(s) over many years have tried to reduce the number of cars in the city centre by closing roads and eliminating parking. it hasn't reduced the number of cars, it just makes the remaining roads more congested. And forces businesses to close.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
You are talking s***e as usual.
As someone who does 30,000 miles a year I take no s*** from a Sunday driver. I can tell you my worst blackspots. M42 around Solihull. M6 Junction 9 to the M54, the entire M25., the Brynglas Tunnel. I wouldn't dream of driving in central London anymore, Birmingham, an hour from Bristol Street to the M5. I could go on all day. If one needs to make an appointment one cannot rely on the motorcar, and use a smart motorway and if there has been an accident one can be, one, two, three hours late.
It is not the golden age of motoring, that is long gone.
You make my point for me. There's a reason you drive 30k miles a year, its because driving works, and nothing else does.
If one needs to make an appointment, the only thing one can rely upon is the motorcar, in almost the entire country.
Yes traffic may be shit in a few places. Shit happens. I can tell you absolutely eg if there's an accident on the M6, or the M56, or the M62 it can lead to sudden gridlock in towns used as a ratrun to avoid the motorway traffic, or worse a motorway closure.
But despite that, its still by far the best option.
The private motorcar, is in almost all circumstances, like democracy. Its the worst option available - except for all other options that have yet been tried.
But I am telling you it doesn't work. There are too many cars on the road. Private motoring is unsustainable from the practical point of view.
It wasn't like this 50 years ago, although it has been getting considerably worse year on year over the last 40. We are at gridlock. It has to change.
You may enjoy the freedom of the open road from a traffic jam, but I don't.
Here's a novel solution - build more roads.
If roads are at capacity, build extra capacity. Same as any other transportation.
Build new motorways, new roads, wider roads, extra lanes, new bridges - whatever is required.
Yes there's extra people on the roads, that's because *drumroll* there's extra people in the country. We used to have 50 million people in the country, we now have 70 million, but where's the new motorway capacity that has been built to cope with the influx of extra people living here?
I don't enjoy traffic jams, but they're also quite often easy to avoid, especially if you can be flexible with your hours and with modern phones or satnavs giving traffic alerts it can still be quite possible to be driving at reasonable speeds and traffic jams are the exception not the norm for me.
But yes, something has to change, and that something is extra road capacity. Not magicking away cars with pixie dust and pushbikes.
More roads generate more traffic. The M25 is proof in point. And coming from the North West do you never use the series of car parks prefaced with M6. (60, 61, 62 etc, etc) it is chaos for most of the day? P.S. I'd love an M4 Southern Relief Road at Newport, but that would have busted the entire transport budget for Wales for the next five years.
We need to get about, but as someone who uses private transport all day every day, the private car is unsustainable.
"More roads generate more traffic" - great!
More traffic is a good thing. It's more transportation, more activity, more convenience, more business. Why oppose that?
More traffic spread over more roads is less traffic per road, not more, overall like a supermarket opening extra checkouts not forcing everyone through just one checkout.
The private car is only unsustainable if you haven't considered every other option which is even less sustainable.
They do though. See LA - massive highways, huge congestion. Compare with Venice - no roads, no congestion.
You have a weird zero-sum take on this that doesn't consider how infrastructure interacts with demand.
Another example you see all the time: "There are no cyclists on xx High Street - why are we wasting money on a cycle lane ". One if the main reasons why people don't cycle is a lack of safe provision.
I can't say I'm surprised that the government should perform worse than its poll rating, in a by-election. Governments usually do.
Absolutely, especially against the Lib Dems who remain masters of by election campaigns.
I think Rishi will think, it could have been worse. Murmurings about replacing him, never loud, will die away. But the Tories are still on track for a heavy defeat. I am currently estimating them losing 100-120 seats, not a wipe out by any means but a loss of power that may well get worse in the election after that. The pendulum has turned.
CON 240 seats or so at the next GE is entirely plausible and in line with my own expectations. So not a wipeout.
So LAB to get the overall majority or maybe fall just short, Keir will be PM in any case as LAB will do a deal with LDs, their 20-25 seats will be enough to provide a stable government through confidence and supply.
I think Kid Starver will get his majority on the back of seats won in Scotland from the SNP but it won't be huge. That may not be the end of the story though, as Cameron proved in 2017. During most of my adult life when a party gets power they tend to keep it for a decade plus.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
You're in danger of becoming the kinetic equivalent of the telephone sanitisers in Hitchhiker's Guide. It may add to the growth figures but wastes energy on doing nothing very useful much of the time.
Except the people driving from A to B aren't doing so for the sake of it, but because they want to do something that is productive to then.
Whether that be working, or shopping, or recreation.
Which of those do you want to do without? Which of those is a bad thing to have more of?
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
Isn't that a teeny weeny bit depressing, though?
After all, most of those measures are about reducing the harms that cars do. ULEZ attempts to deal with some specific localised air pollution. Reducing speed limits makes accidents less likely and less harmful. That sort of thing. Tilting the balance between the benefits drivers get from driving and the costs that society pays.
One lesson of Uxbridge is that, at least in some seats, that's politically unacceptable. And whilst there's something in the "wrong moment" argument, the experience is that car restraint measures are rarely popular in advance. And there are plenty of other measures that any government is going to have to take in the next few years.
Are will still so pampered as a nation that we're going to spit out any nasty medicine?
The intention of a policy - reduction of pollution - may be good. While the implementation/methodology is bad.
What is politically unacceptable is saying that “those people who are poor and screwed over by this policy - well, the aim of the policy is good. So on consideration, and after some thought FUCK YOU, FUCKERS”.
ULEZ has become, in the eyes of some poorer people, a tax which has little or no cost on the well off. Who own expensive, frequently updated cars. And/Or can afford to life in the areas with the best public transport connections to their white collar jobs and don’t need a vehicle for work.
Something to understand as well. Those with cars in the “next tranche”, that tightening ULEZ will ban, are convinced that the next step is coming very soon and will be done in the same way. So far more than the 10% of car owners with non compliant vehicles are upset about this.
It is perfectly possible to come up with a way to reduce emissions that doesn’t do this. The ULEZ implementation was picked because it was cheap and easy - for the politicians and those running the system. Producer interest vs Consumer.
Good post.
What is most wrong about ULEZ is the haste in which people are being forced to retrospectively revise earlier choices that they were at one time encouraged to make, at enormous cost. It amounts to retrospective taxation.
Owners of pre-2015 diesel vehicles should have been put on notice that they had 5 or so years to change their vehicle, unless it was already say at least 15 years old. That would still have prompted a change of behaviour, but at a pace that was slow enough to avoid financial distress.
And, as you say, in the absence of a reasoned approach to implementation then those whose cars may at this point still be compliant should be very fearful that it won't be long before they'll be next in line.
Dirty diseasals are the key things that need to be taxed off urban roads. Its crazy to own a diesel to drive in London anyway - they will inevitably break. Perhaps more scrappage money could have been offered - there are vast billions available to be handed to Tory spivs or purveyors of accommodation barges, but not to stop kids lungs being filled with diesel fumes.
By elections confirming trends we've seen in local elections. Tory vote holding up in urban areas. Cratering in rural. Suggests not much UNS and the possibility of some tasty constituency odds. A (very) narrow pathway to Tories largest Party. Hold most urban seats on small swings. Hold most rural seats on much larger ones.
The margin in Selby and Ainsty suggests Labour won Selby town comfortably but the Tories still won the villages in the constituency
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Driving a bicycle can be very practical for a very large number of journeys. Not every journey, but I'm not a dogmatist who would propose one mode of transport is suitable for every journey.
Here in West Cork I'm finding driving is a lot easier than I ever found it anywhere in Britain. Where the population density is low a car comes into its own. But we visited Bath recently, using public transport when we were there this time - on a previous visit we'd driven, and in any sort of reasonably-sized urban area, using a car becomes nightmarish, and there are much better options.
My recommendation to you is to drive to the West of Ireland for a holiday. Experience the freedom of driving on roads where the worst traffic you have to worry about is an occasional tractor, or herd of cows. Then take yourself off for a holiday somewhere with good cycling infrastructure - some European city - and enjoy the freedom of being able to explore a city by bicycle, without having to battle the hassle of urban driving.
I think it would give you a broader perspective. You have a very narrow focus on car driving, and cannot imagine anything different.
When we were in Valencia, my son commented on the number of middle-aged women riding bicycles in normal clothes, obviously simply using a bike to get from A to B. Having grown up in the UK, it was something of a novelty to him that bikes could actually be used as practical transport by a wide range of people and not just for recreation by sporty types.
I remember chatting with a Danish colleague who had just bought an e-bike. I said “but isn’t that a cheat, surely the point of riding the bike to work is to get more exercise?” And he looked at me confused and said “the point of a bike is to get from a to b, isn’t it?”
for me, as I cycle to work when I can, it is both, It does not have to be one or the other.
I can't say I'm surprised that the government should perform worse than its poll rating, in a by-election. Governments usually do.
Absolutely, especially against the Lib Dems who remain masters of by election campaigns.
I think Rishi will think, it could have been worse. Murmurings about replacing him, never loud, will die away. But the Tories are still on track for a heavy defeat. I am currently estimating them losing 100-120 seats, not a wipe out by any means but a loss of power that may well get worse in the election after that. The pendulum has turned.
CON 240 seats or so at the next GE is entirely plausible and in line with my own expectations. So not a wipeout.
So LAB to get the overall majority or maybe fall just short, Keir will be PM in any case as LAB will do a deal with LDs, their 20-25 seats will be enough to provide a stable government through confidence and supply.
I think Kid Starver will get his majority on the back of seats won in Scotland from the SNP but it won't be huge. That may not be the end of the story though, as Cameron proved in 2017. During most of my adult life when a party gets power they tend to keep it for a decade plus.
But, past performance is no guide to future success.
I'm shy about predicting the next year, yet alone the next ten.
I did a YouGov which asked if I approved of the decriminalization of cannabis.
Well I don't.
I support its legalisation.
What I oppose is the idea of decriminalization - the idea of something being illegal but the law not being applied.
That is de facto what we have now and I agree that it seems to bring the worst of all possible worlds. The removal of prosecutions for possession increases demand but the prosecution of suppliers makes it impossible for legitimate businesses to compete or enter the market. The result is that the demand for the products of criminal gangs with all the contamination/entry problems actually increases as does the collateral damage.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Fine, as long as car users are paying their externalities properly. Sone of that is schemes like ULEZ, but it's also that car use makes towns and cities inefficient. You have to put stuff further apart to make room for cars. That makes services more expensive to provide and someone has to pick up the tab.
I've mentioned this group before, small state Americans really unkeen on extensive car provision:
Cars make towns far, far more efficient. Getting about towns at 30-40mph is much faster than walking around town at 3-4mph.
And you may have mentioned that group before, but I've never heard of them before and they seem batshit crazy to me. There's cults of every kind in America, so no shock there's an anti-car cult.
That Tories will want to weaponise that Uxbridge result. The problem is, the Tories are committed to banning new ICEs from 2030 (I know that’s to do with climate rather than air quality, but it’s the same effect). I wonder if they might now ditch that and dare Labour to keep that pledge.
It's not an ICE ban as PHEVs will still be available until 2035. There probably won't be any pure ICE offerings from any major OEMs anyway by then so it's irrelevant what this scumbag government does or doesn't do on the issue.
Here in Spain I've hired my usual Fiat Panda. Except this is a new one with the mild hybrid system. Which is *interesting*. Previous 1.2 4-pot replaced by 1.0 3-pot turbo with a bigger battery and now 6 gears.
What that means is that instead of a drivetrain which would run forever, we have a ludicrous thing with a power band absurdly narrow. And a nagging indicator for when you should change gear. Which isn't when it says. And the mild hybrid? As well as cutting the engine at traffic lights, it also advises you to coast in neutral - again with the engine off.
Frankly they have ruined a thoroughly good car. I am an advocate for proper hybrids and EVs, but this is my first "mild" hybrid and its bloody awful.
Are you going to do a youtube video on it ?
Sounds like you should given the issues.
My Wife's EV is great. A good car which gives excellent performance and, for the extra we paid for it, the saving on fuel is large
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
You are talking s***e as usual.
As someone who does 30,000 miles a year I take no s*** from a Sunday driver. I can tell you my worst blackspots. M42 around Solihull. M6 Junction 9 to the M54, the entire M25., the Brynglas Tunnel. I wouldn't dream of driving in central London anymore, Birmingham, an hour from Bristol Street to the M5. I could go on all day. If one needs to make an appointment one cannot rely on the motorcar, and use a smart motorway and if there has been an accident one can be, one, two, three hours late.
It is not the golden age of motoring, that is long gone.
You make my point for me. There's a reason you drive 30k miles a year, its because driving works, and nothing else does.
If one needs to make an appointment, the only thing one can rely upon is the motorcar, in almost the entire country.
Yes traffic may be shit in a few places. Shit happens. I can tell you absolutely eg if there's an accident on the M6, or the M56, or the M62 it can lead to sudden gridlock in towns used as a ratrun to avoid the motorway traffic, or worse a motorway closure.
But despite that, its still by far the best option.
The private motorcar, is in almost all circumstances, like democracy. Its the worst option available - except for all other options that have yet been tried.
But I am telling you it doesn't work. There are too many cars on the road. Private motoring is unsustainable from the practical point of view.
It wasn't like this 50 years ago, although it has been getting considerably worse year on year over the last 40. We are at gridlock. It has to change.
You may enjoy the freedom of the open road from a traffic jam, but I don't.
Here's a novel solution - build more roads.
If roads are at capacity, build extra capacity. Same as any other transportation.
Build new motorways, new roads, wider roads, extra lanes, new bridges - whatever is required.
Yes there's extra people on the roads, that's because *drumroll* there's extra people in the country. We used to have 50 million people in the country, we now have 70 million, but where's the new motorway capacity that has been built to cope with the influx of extra people living here?
I don't enjoy traffic jams, but they're also quite often easy to avoid, especially if you can be flexible with your hours and with modern phones or satnavs giving traffic alerts it can still be quite possible to be driving at reasonable speeds and traffic jams are the exception not the norm for me.
But yes, something has to change, and that something is extra road capacity. Not magicking away cars with pixie dust and pushbikes.
More roads generate more traffic. The M25 is proof in point. And coming from the North West do you never use the series of car parks prefaced with M6. (60, 61, 62 etc, etc) it is chaos for most of the day? P.S. I'd love an M4 Southern Relief Road at Newport, but that would have busted the entire transport budget for Wales for the next five years.
We need to get about, but as someone who uses private transport all day every day, the private car is unsustainable.
"More roads generate more traffic" - great!
More traffic is a good thing. It's more transportation, more activity, more convenience, more business. Why oppose that?
More traffic spread over more roads is less traffic per road, not more, overall like a supermarket opening extra checkouts not forcing everyone through just one checkout.
The private car is only unsustainable if you haven't considered every other option which is even less sustainable.
They do though. See LA - massive highways, huge congestion. Compare with Venice - no roads, no congestion.
You have a weird zero-sum take on this that doesn't consider how infrastructure interacts with demand.
Another example you see all the time: "There are no cyclists on xx High Street - why are we wasting money on a cycle lane ". One if the main reasons why people don't cycle is a lack of safe provision.
Yes, his take is zero-sum. I agree with him that we should have been building more roads. But not that "build more roads" is the solution. American cities did "build more roads" and more roads and then more roads. And then started removing them because the more roads you build the more traffic you generate and the slower traffic gets.
As always a balance is needed. There are a stack of shovel-ready road schemes which the government should have funded as an economic driver. At the same time we need to be cutting traffic in towns and cities which means more bypasses and more traffic free zones.
Interesting byelections results. In terms of next year's general election, they don't change anything...
...However, in the long term, it's very disturbing. It demonstrates the kind of opposition which can be rallied to environmental policies and how easily the Conservatives could be seduced into leading it.
..and it might change tactics for the next GE. If Uxbridge could be cloned then the contest would be much tighter.
The LDs have long known that the way to win elections is to have two policies; the national one and the opposite local one.
Labour and Tory can see from Uxbridge the salience of this. It is particularly effective in issues where salience is possible - unlike perhaps tax, pensions, health which are not universally localisable.
But the big issues this can be done with are green stuff (see Uxbridge) and housing (ask the LDs).
Not much is politics is truthful; the issue is what is possible. It is possible to campaign nationally for X billion houses and Net Zero by next Tuesday, while telling every single local area and constituency that this applies to everyone except you.
The evidence that this wins elections is strong. As strong as the evidence (ask Sir K) that you win elections by promising no tax cuts, and no expenditure cuts but also no expenditure increases.
We are in for some interesting campaigning, with North Korean levels of accuracy.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
You're in danger of becoming the kinetic equivalent of the telephone sanitisers in Hitchhiker's Guide. It may add to the growth figures but wastes energy on doing nothing very useful much of the time.
I think he's trying to hit every economic fallacy in the textbook.
It's strange how many people consider driving good for economic activity. It's a cost, space and time sink. The only thing you can buy out of a car window is a McDonald's. An Edinburgh tram has 250 customers on it - that's equivalent to a a traffic jam nearly a mile long.
Perhaps my attitude to this comes from actually growing up in the countryside. It was amazing moving to a city and finding that thousands of people could spend their time having fun and spending money rather than driving for hours to get to the cinema in Inverness.
What it shows is how Khan (and Burnham) have trapped themselves. Getting out of the Commons and getting some executive power seemed a no brainer when Labour were self destructing under that idiot Corbyn and it allowed them to avoid collateral damage but now, with Labour on the cusp of government, they look like forgotten men who will struggle to get back into front line politics, let alone the cabinet.
Khan is a canny operator. I doubt he cares too much. If you follow his twitter feed you will see his pronouncements are very much geared towards his base and his support. Any doubters or objectors are just dismissed. He is doing what he needs to in order to get re-elected and he will.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
You are talking s***e as usual.
As someone who does 30,000 miles a year I take no s*** from a Sunday driver. I can tell you my worst blackspots. M42 around Solihull. M6 Junction 9 to the M54, the entire M25., the Brynglas Tunnel. I wouldn't dream of driving in central London anymore, Birmingham, an hour from Bristol Street to the M5. I could go on all day. If one needs to make an appointment one cannot rely on the motorcar, and use a smart motorway and if there has been an accident one can be, one, two, three hours late.
It is not the golden age of motoring, that is long gone.
You make my point for me. There's a reason you drive 30k miles a year, its because driving works, and nothing else does.
If one needs to make an appointment, the only thing one can rely upon is the motorcar, in almost the entire country.
Yes traffic may be shit in a few places. Shit happens. I can tell you absolutely eg if there's an accident on the M6, or the M56, or the M62 it can lead to sudden gridlock in towns used as a ratrun to avoid the motorway traffic, or worse a motorway closure.
But despite that, its still by far the best option.
The private motorcar, is in almost all circumstances, like democracy. Its the worst option available - except for all other options that have yet been tried.
But I am telling you it doesn't work. There are too many cars on the road. Private motoring is unsustainable from the practical point of view.
It wasn't like this 50 years ago, although it has been getting considerably worse year on year over the last 40. We are at gridlock. It has to change.
You may enjoy the freedom of the open road from a traffic jam, but I don't.
Here's a novel solution - build more roads.
If roads are at capacity, build extra capacity. Same as any other transportation.
Build new motorways, new roads, wider roads, extra lanes, new bridges - whatever is required.
Yes there's extra people on the roads, that's because *drumroll* there's extra people in the country. We used to have 50 million people in the country, we now have 70 million, but where's the new motorway capacity that has been built to cope with the influx of extra people living here?
I don't enjoy traffic jams, but they're also quite often easy to avoid, especially if you can be flexible with your hours and with modern phones or satnavs giving traffic alerts it can still be quite possible to be driving at reasonable speeds and traffic jams are the exception not the norm for me.
But yes, something has to change, and that something is extra road capacity. Not magicking away cars with pixie dust and pushbikes.
More roads generate more traffic. The M25 is proof in point. And coming from the North West do you never use the series of car parks prefaced with M6. (60, 61, 62 etc, etc) it is chaos for most of the day? P.S. I'd love an M4 Southern Relief Road at Newport, but that would have busted the entire transport budget for Wales for the next five years.
We need to get about, but as someone who uses private transport all day every day, the private car is unsustainable.
"More roads generate more traffic" - great!
More traffic is a good thing. It's more transportation, more activity, more convenience, more business. Why oppose that?
More traffic spread over more roads is less traffic per road, not more, overall like a supermarket opening extra checkouts not forcing everyone through just one checkout.
The private car is only unsustainable if you haven't considered every other option which is even less sustainable.
They do though. See LA - massive highways, huge congestion. Compare with Venice - no roads, no congestion.
You have a weird zero-sum take on this that doesn't consider how infrastructure interacts with demand.
Another example you see all the time: "There are no cyclists on xx High Street - why are we wasting money on a cycle lane ". One if the main reasons why people don't cycle is a lack of safe provision.
Los Angeles population 3.5 million Venice population 0.265 million
Yeah that's comparable. 🤦♂️
Drivers in LA will be travelling faster than cyclists in Venice, with or without congestion.
Not that congestion is that big of a problem in most of the country. Certainly not with enough road building.
Greetings from Amsterdam: despite the paucity of personal motor vehicles here, the population look bright eyed and bushy tailed.
Well, maybe not all of them, but I don't think that's anything to do with the bicycles.
I don't know if it is the bikes or cannabis suppressing appetites but the people in Holland seem to have much less of an obesity problem than you see on UK streets.
Uxbridge does stand out, because it was expected that the Tories would lose all three but, this is cold comfort for the Tories who are still staring down the barrel of a heavy election defeat.
I know political junkies like to obsess about them, because there is nothing much to focus on in mid-term besides local elections, but by-elections tell one precisely nothing about the next general, any more than mid-term opinion polls do.
Of course that will never stop people using them to make the points they want to make, and obviously this is a political betting site and they are excellent betting events, but those trying to read the runes about the outcome of the late-2024 general election are almost certainly wasting their time.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
You're in danger of becoming the kinetic equivalent of the telephone sanitisers in Hitchhiker's Guide. It may add to the growth figures but wastes energy on doing nothing very useful much of the time.
I think he's trying to hit every economic fallacy in the textbook.
It's strange how many people consider driving good for economic activity. It's a cost, space and time sink. The only thing you can buy out of a car window is a McDonald's. An Edinburgh tram has 250 customers on it - that's equivalent to a a traffic jam nearly a mile long.
Perhaps my attitude to this comes from actually growing up in the countryside. It was amazing moving to a city and finding that thousands of people could spend their time having fun and spending money rather than driving for hours to get to the cinema in Inverness.
Oh great, now we are onto use trams as a solution.
There are a grand total of zero trams in my town, nor any demand for them. So which invisible tram should I magic up with my pixie dust?
Yes cities can be different. But most of the country IS NOT IN A CITY.
By elections confirming trends we've seen in local elections. Tory vote holding up in urban areas. Cratering in rural. Suggests not much UNS and the possibility of some tasty constituency odds. A (very) narrow pathway to Tories largest Party. Hold most urban seats on small swings. Hold most rural seats on much larger ones.
The margin in Selby and Ainsty suggests Labour won Selby town comfortably but the Tories still won the villages in the constituency
The Labour vote was only about 3,000 votes up on GE2019 whilst the Tories were down 20,000.
I did a YouGov which asked if I approved of the decriminalization of cannabis.
Well I don't.
I support its legalisation.
What I oppose is the idea of decriminalization - the idea of something being illegal but the law not being applied.
Whilst I broadly agree with your point, I think you are slightly misunderstanding what decriminalisation is.
It doesn't mean "being illegal but the law not being applied". It means it becomes a civil rather than criminal offence.
So, for example, a parking ticket is a civil rather than criminal matter - poor parking doesn't give you a criminal record. But if you park on a double yellow line, you'll fairly quickly learn that the (civil) law is still very much applied.
Without wishing to defend Hands, unfortunately that is the way politicians always operate. Who can forget Blears' infamous 'there's no doubt this was a disastrous night for the Tories' on the day Labour came fourth in Bromley and Chislehurst* and failed to retake Blaenau Gwent?
*Interestingly the candidate for Labour who suffered this humiliation was Rachel Reeves.
I want to express my thanks to HYUFD for his canvassing report.
It prompted me to put £50 on the Conservatives to hold Uxbridge, at 9-1.
Quite.
Maybe people should listen to @HYUFD more rather than just take the piss out of him?
He does way more for the party than I do.
Even a stopped clock occasionally tells the right time.
That's not fair. On polling and seat numbers he's usually pretty shrewd.
He's just unable to admit when he's wrong on any other subject and he frequently is, which makes him look silly.
He *can* be right on polling. But he can also endlessly be wrong. Curtice has just laid out the harsh reality that these by-elections show the Tories even further behind than the polls suggested.
HY cherry picks polls to show things aren't that bad actually and if you look here actually you will see the Tories are right actually. Which isn't correct.
Not can we set aside that Mr Holier-than-thou has a defective grasp on the faith he rams into everyone's faces, never mind the moral vacuum where literally any depravity can be supported of there is a vote in it.
He called Uxbridge. Which is insightful! But that doesn't make him right. Because it was ULEZ or if it was Hindu's then it isn't the government and it's 5 People's Priorities which he insists we all have top of mind. Steve Gammon didn't mention them at all in his campaign.
As you say, Curtice has just laid out the harsh reality for the Tories that these by-elections show them even further behind than the polls suggested. And in doing so he very much downplayed the significance of the Uxbridge result on the basis that an unusual local issue came to the fore there.
That's a very different emphasis on the big picture than is found in Mike's thread header, which almost treats Selby as an afterthought. I agree with Curtice.
Even if you ignore the effect of ULEZ, the big picture is this, taking the three by-elections as a whole: In the one by-election that the LDs contested actively, their vote share rose by 28.4% In the two by-elections that Labour contested actively, their vote share rose by an average of 13.7% The Conservatives contested all three by-elections actively, and their vote share fell by an average of 21%.
Basically the electorate are voting for the Anyone-But-Conservative candidate best placed to win. That's backed up by the fact that that Labour lost their deposit in one by election and the LDs in two, which signals that tactical voting against the Conservatives is back on a massive scale. HYUFD may have called Uxbridge right, but last night also showed that when he downplays the likelihood of tactical voting he could not be more wrong.
In 1997 Labour won Selby, the LDs won Somerton and Frome but the Tories held Uxbridge. So the result does show Rishi will at least do no worse than Major did in 1997 rather than the Canada 1993 wipeout Liz was heading for. Still much work to do to get inflation down further though etc
On the swing from last night's by elections as Bart said last night you would think Sir Ed Davey was heading for PM more than Sir Keir. Sir Keir will decide his Selby win with a Blairite youngster but Uxbridge loss with an inner London candidate due to Khan's ULEZ means he needs to ignore the left even more I suspect
If you continue to take false comfort in last night's result, it doesn't bother me.
The difference between the Selby and Uxbridge result is that one is typical of the national mood in most of the seats where Labour is in 2nd place and the other is typical only of the local mood in ULEZ-affected Outer London.
The Somerton and Frome result is relevant to LD target seats, but there are only 50 or so of them. Ed Davey isn't going to be PM with 50 MPs.
The big takeaway from last night is that tactical voting is massive, of benefit to both Labour and Lib Dems. Up to now you've been arguing here that it isn't. Have you changed your mind now?
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
You are talking s***e as usual.
As someone who does 30,000 miles a year I take no s*** from a Sunday driver. I can tell you my worst blackspots. M42 around Solihull. M6 Junction 9 to the M54, the entire M25., the Brynglas Tunnel. I wouldn't dream of driving in central London anymore, Birmingham, an hour from Bristol Street to the M5. I could go on all day. If one needs to make an appointment one cannot rely on the motorcar, and use a smart motorway and if there has been an accident one can be, one, two, three hours late.
It is not the golden age of motoring, that is long gone.
You make my point for me. There's a reason you drive 30k miles a year, its because driving works, and nothing else does.
If one needs to make an appointment, the only thing one can rely upon is the motorcar, in almost the entire country.
Yes traffic may be shit in a few places. Shit happens. I can tell you absolutely eg if there's an accident on the M6, or the M56, or the M62 it can lead to sudden gridlock in towns used as a ratrun to avoid the motorway traffic, or worse a motorway closure.
But despite that, its still by far the best option.
The private motorcar, is in almost all circumstances, like democracy. Its the worst option available - except for all other options that have yet been tried.
But I am telling you it doesn't work. There are too many cars on the road. Private motoring is unsustainable from the practical point of view.
It wasn't like this 50 years ago, although it has been getting considerably worse year on year over the last 40. We are at gridlock. It has to change.
You may enjoy the freedom of the open road from a traffic jam, but I don't.
Here's a novel solution - build more roads.
If roads are at capacity, build extra capacity. Same as any other transportation.
Build new motorways, new roads, wider roads, extra lanes, new bridges - whatever is required.
Yes there's extra people on the roads, that's because *drumroll* there's extra people in the country. We used to have 50 million people in the country, we now have 70 million, but where's the new motorway capacity that has been built to cope with the influx of extra people living here?
I don't enjoy traffic jams, but they're also quite often easy to avoid, especially if you can be flexible with your hours and with modern phones or satnavs giving traffic alerts it can still be quite possible to be driving at reasonable speeds and traffic jams are the exception not the norm for me.
But yes, something has to change, and that something is extra road capacity. Not magicking away cars with pixie dust and pushbikes.
More roads generate more traffic. The M25 is proof in point. And coming from the North West do you never use the series of car parks prefaced with M6. (60, 61, 62 etc, etc) it is chaos for most of the day? P.S. I'd love an M4 Southern Relief Road at Newport, but that would have busted the entire transport budget for Wales for the next five years.
We need to get about, but as someone who uses private transport all day every day, the private car is unsustainable.
"More roads generate more traffic" - great!
More traffic is a good thing. It's more transportation, more activity, more convenience, more business. Why oppose that?
More traffic spread over more roads is less traffic per road, not more, overall like a supermarket opening extra checkouts not forcing everyone through just one checkout.
The private car is only unsustainable if you haven't considered every other option which is even less sustainable.
They do though. See LA - massive highways, huge congestion. Compare with Venice - no roads, no congestion.
You have a weird zero-sum take on this that doesn't consider how infrastructure interacts with demand.
Another example you see all the time: "There are no cyclists on xx High Street - why are we wasting money on a cycle lane ". One if the main reasons why people don't cycle is a lack of safe provision.
Yes, his take is zero-sum. I agree with him that we should have been building more roads. But not that "build more roads" is the solution. American cities did "build more roads" and more roads and then more roads. And then started removing them because the more roads you build the more traffic you generate and the slower traffic gets.
As always a balance is needed. There are a stack of shovel-ready road schemes which the government should have funded as an economic driver. At the same time we need to be cutting traffic in towns and cities which means more bypasses and more traffic free zones.
Also, the more cars you have the more parking you need. American cities demolished so many blocks to make car lots they made the city downtowns ugly and windswept so, yes, it is easy to park there but, no, you don’t want to go and park there because it’s ugly and windswept
Surprised by the scale of Lab win in S&A - that single poll with 12pp lead was about right. So, lost my late bet on Con. I did also have a late bet on Con on Uxbridge, following discussion here, so up a bit overall. I didn't have anything on S&F as there seemed no value there.
I can't say I'm surprised that the government should perform worse than its poll rating, in a by-election. Governments usually do.
Absolutely, especially against the Lib Dems who remain masters of by election campaigns.
I think Rishi will think, it could have been worse. Murmurings about replacing him, never loud, will die away. But the Tories are still on track for a heavy defeat. I am currently estimating them losing 100-120 seats, not a wipe out by any means but a loss of power that may well get worse in the election after that. The pendulum has turned.
CON 240 seats or so at the next GE is entirely plausible and in line with my own expectations. So not a wipeout.
So LAB to get the overall majority or maybe fall just short, Keir will be PM in any case as LAB will do a deal with LDs, their 20-25 seats will be enough to provide a stable government through confidence and supply.
I think Kid Starver will get his majority on the back of seats won in Scotland from the SNP but it won't be huge. That may not be the end of the story though, as Cameron proved in 2017. During most of my adult life when a party gets power they tend to keep it for a decade plus.
But, past performance is no guide to future success.
I'm shy about predicting the next year, yet alone the next ten.
Nothing is certain but the advantages of incumbency in our system seem to have increased. It takes a proper cock up, or a series of them, for the party of government to lose power.
Everyone’s favourite human hatstand JRM on R4 saying message is “not to panic” which is a good indicator that Rishi isn’t going to be facing a challenge soon I would think.
He’s also said the party need to support Rishi. Toenails nearly fell off his chair.
Meanwhile Sir John Curtice tells Nick Robinson that the overnight results show the Tories are a long way behind, declining their vote by a greater margin than the opinion polls show...
Nobody can deny that it was a poor night but Uxbridge was unexpected, despite @HYUFD predictions, and for Sunak it must be a relief as he goes into recess
We are still 15 months away from a GE and events happen, including what happens in Scotland to the SNP
I think many of us have vat-sized popcorn buckets awaiting eating as we await nippie news on that latter point.
You have to accept though that it is going to take something extraordinary to turn this around for the Tories. Everything is possible in politics! It's just increasingly unlikely...
Rozzers are supposedly polishing the handcuffs, something certainly up given the very odd declaration from outgoing CC. Hard to see nay reason for it other than to distance him and protect pension. Hopefully it is NCA that are running the show now and not locals and government ministers.
Uxbridge does stand out, because it was expected that the Tories would lose all three but, this is cold comfort for the Tories who are still staring down the barrel of a heavy election defeat.
Uxbridge tells everyone what tactics to use. It won't be pretty. Just note how people are not voting/campaigning over petrol cars generally. That's because the target for stopping new sales is 2030. If it was 2024 there would be 10 million votes in it. ULEZ, a comparative triviality is NOW not future. Go figure, bet accordingly.
(Prediction: the 2030 petrol car date won't survive.)
Everyone’s favourite human hatstand JRM on R4 saying message is “not to panic” which is a good indicator that Rishi isn’t going to be facing a challenge soon I would think.
He’s also said the party need to support Rishi. Toenails nearly fell off his chair.
Hmm. If he's expressing support that might be a sign he's on manoeuvres.
Remember, you have to be behind somebody before stabbing them in the back.
That Tories will want to weaponise that Uxbridge result. The problem is, the Tories are committed to banning new ICEs from 2030 (I know that’s to do with climate rather than air quality, but it’s the same effect). I wonder if they might now ditch that and dare Labour to keep that pledge.
It's not an ICE ban as PHEVs will still be available until 2035. There probably won't be any pure ICE offerings from any major OEMs anyway by then so it's irrelevant what this scumbag government does or doesn't do on the issue.
Here in Spain I've hired my usual Fiat Panda. Except this is a new one with the mild hybrid system. Which is *interesting*. Previous 1.2 4-pot replaced by 1.0 3-pot turbo with a bigger battery and now 6 gears.
What that means is that instead of a drivetrain which would run forever, we have a ludicrous thing with a power band absurdly narrow. And a nagging indicator for when you should change gear. Which isn't when it says. And the mild hybrid? As well as cutting the engine at traffic lights, it also advises you to coast in neutral - again with the engine off.
Frankly they have ruined a thoroughly good car. I am an advocate for proper hybrids and EVs, but this is my first "mild" hybrid and its bloody awful.
Are you going to do a youtube video on it ?
Sounds like you should given the issues.
My Wife's EV is great. A good car which gives excellent performance and, for the extra we paid for it, the saving on fuel is large
I wasn't going to do - taking a month off YouTube to recharge the batteries and to think about how I rejig the channel going forward. But now you come to mention it, thats a very good idea. Small petrol hybrid vs EV. One is horrible to drive, the other is brilliant to drive.
I can't stress enough that once you've changed to an electric drivetrain, you'll never want to go back to gears. Even if the running cost was the same - and as you point out it isn't - the driving experience of an EV is just so much better.
What it shows is how Khan (and Burnham) have trapped themselves. Getting out of the Commons and getting some executive power seemed a no brainer when Labour were self destructing under that idiot Corbyn and it allowed them to avoid collateral damage but now, with Labour on the cusp of government, they look like forgotten men who will struggle to get back into front line politics, let alone the cabinet.
Khan is a canny operator. I doubt he cares too much. If you follow his twitter feed you will see his pronouncements are very much geared towards his base and his support. Any doubters or objectors are just dismissed. He is doing what he needs to in order to get re-elected and he will.
I agree he will be re-elected as Mayor but the path to a cabinet post is looking full of thorns.
Interesting byelections results. In terms of next year's general election, they don't change anything...
...However, in the long term, it's very disturbing. It demonstrates the kind of opposition which can be rallied to environmental policies and how easily the Conservatives could be seduced into leading it.
..and it might change tactics for the next GE. If Uxbridge could be cloned then the contest would be much tighter.
The LDs have long known that the way to win elections is to have two policies; the national one and the opposite local one.
Labour and Tory can see from Uxbridge the salience of this. It is particularly effective in issues where salience is possible - unlike perhaps tax, pensions, health which are not universally localisable.
But the big issues this can be done with are green stuff (see Uxbridge) and housing (ask the LDs).
Not much is politics is truthful; the issue is what is possible. It is possible to campaign nationally for X billion houses and Net Zero by next Tuesday, while telling every single local area and constituency that this applies to everyone except you.
The evidence that this wins elections is strong. As strong as the evidence (ask Sir K) that you win elections by promising no tax cuts, and no expenditure cuts but also no expenditure increases.
We are in for some interesting campaigning, with North Korean levels of accuracy.
Oversimplification, I think. You can win a by election, on low turnout, by firing up part of the electorate on a single issue. Harder in a GE, where more people vote and on a much wider range of issues.
The Lads are masters of the local issue by election, they don't consistently hold those seats at GEs.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
You're in danger of becoming the kinetic equivalent of the telephone sanitisers in Hitchhiker's Guide. It may add to the growth figures but wastes energy on doing nothing very useful much of the time.
I think he's trying to hit every economic fallacy in the textbook.
It's strange how many people consider driving good for economic activity. It's a cost, space and time sink. The only thing you can buy out of a car window is a McDonald's. An Edinburgh tram has 250 customers on it - that's equivalent to a a traffic jam nearly a mile long.
Perhaps my attitude to this comes from actually growing up in the countryside. It was amazing moving to a city and finding that thousands of people could spend their time having fun and spending money rather than driving for hours to get to the cinema in Inverness.
Oh great, now we are onto use trams as a solution.
There are a grand total of zero trams in my town, nor any demand for them. So which invisible tram should I magic up with my pixie dust?
Yes cities can be different. But most of the country IS NOT IN A CITY.
A large majority of people (80%) DO LIVE IN CITIES
Without wishing to defend Hands, unfortunately that is the way politicians always operate. Who can forget Blears' infamous 'there's no doubt this was a disastrous night for the Tories' on the day Labour came fourth in Bromley and Chislehurst* and failed to retake Blaenau Gwent?
*Interestingly the candidate for Labour who suffered this humiliation was Rachel Reeves.
I would note there is one exception to this rule, who does generally tend to be honest about things not going well.
That exception is somebody I utterly despise, whose policies are junk, and whose nastiness is legendary, but he is at least honest.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
Essentially, yes. I think that in a few years time we will se significant safety improvements on Welsh roads, and I think opponents are actually - behind the "my personal freedom to do XYZ" smoke-screen - worried that it will be shown to work. Just as LTNs have been working for well over half a century now.
Driving at more than 20mph (or usually less) in residential roads is purely a cultural expectation, and that can change.
One of the UK road safety outliers is the proportion of people killed on our roads who are pedestrians, and a
I have no problem with 20mph zones around schools and 'tight' residential streets but to mandate all 30mph zones as 20mph is ill thought out just as ULEZ is in outer London
Greetings from Amsterdam: despite the paucity of personal motor vehicles here, the population look bright eyed and bushy tailed.
Well, maybe not all of them, but I don't think that's anything to do with the bicycles.
I don't know if it is the bikes or cannabis suppressing appetites but the people in Holland seem to have much less of an obesity problem than you see on UK streets.
Cannabis suppressing appetite? You’ve never done the all night garage run due to bong induced munchies obvs.
I want to express my thanks to HYUFD for his canvassing report.
It prompted me to put £50 on the Conservatives to hold Uxbridge, at 9-1.
Quite.
Maybe people should listen to @HYUFD more rather than just take the piss out of him?
He does way more for the party than I do.
Even a stopped clock occasionally tells the right time.
That's not fair. On polling and seat numbers he's usually pretty shrewd.
He's just unable to admit when he's wrong on any other subject and he frequently is, which makes him look silly.
He *can* be right on polling. But he can also endlessly be wrong. Curtice has just laid out the harsh reality that these by-elections show the Tories even further behind than the polls suggested.
HY cherry picks polls to show things aren't that bad actually and if you look here actually you will see the Tories are right actually. Which isn't correct.
Not can we set aside that Mr Holier-than-thou has a defective grasp on the faith he rams into everyone's faces, never mind the moral vacuum where literally any depravity can be supported of there is a vote in it.
He called Uxbridge. Which is insightful! But that doesn't make him right. Because it was ULEZ or if it was Hindu's then it isn't the government and it's 5 People's Priorities which he insists we all have top of mind. Steve Gammon didn't mention them at all in his campaign.
As you say, Curtice has just laid out the harsh reality for the Tories that these by-elections show them even further behind than the polls suggested. And in doing so he very much downplayed the significance of the Uxbridge result on the basis that an unusual local issue came to the fore there.
That's a very different emphasis on the big picture than is found in Mike's thread header, which almost treats Selby as an afterthought. I agree with Curtice.
Even if you ignore the effect of ULEZ, the big picture is this, taking the three by-elections as a whole: In the one by-election that the LDs contested actively, their vote share rose by 28.4% In the two by-elections that Labour contested actively, their vote share rose by an average of 13.7% The Conservatives contested all three by-elections actively, and their vote share fell by an average of 21%.
Basically the electorate are voting for the Anyone-But-Conservative candidate best placed to win. That's backed up by the fact that that Labour lost their deposit in one by election and the LDs in two, which signals that tactical voting against the Conservatives is back on a massive scale. HYUFD may have called Uxbridge right, but last night also showed that when he downplays the likelihood of tactical voting he could not be more wrong.
In 1997 Labour won Selby, the LDs won Somerton and Frome but the Tories held Uxbridge. So the result does show Rishi will at least do no worse than Major did in 1997 rather than the Canada 1993 wipeout Liz was heading for. Still much work to do to get inflation down further though etc
On the swing from last night's by elections as Bart said last night you would think Sir Ed Davey was heading for PM more than Sir Keir. Sir Keir will decide his Selby win with a Blairite youngster but Uxbridge loss with an inner London candidate due to Khan's ULEZ means he needs to ignore the left even more I suspect
If you continue to take false comfort in last night's result, it doesn't bother me.
The difference between the Selby and Uxbridge result is that one is typical of the national mood in most of the seats where Labour is in 2nd place and the other is typical only of the local mood in ULEZ-affected Outer London.
The Somerton and Frome result is relevant to LD target seats, but there are only 50 or so of them. Ed Davey isn't going to be PM with 50 MPs.
The big takeaway from last night is that tactical voting is massive, of benefit to both Labour and Lib Dems. Up to now you've been arguing here that it isn't. Have you changed your mind now?
Show me one post I have said tactical voting is irrelevant under a more centrist Labour leader like Starmer?
I did a YouGov which asked if I approved of the decriminalization of cannabis.
Well I don't.
I support its legalisation.
What I oppose is the idea of decriminalization - the idea of something being illegal but the law not being applied.
I do wonder where the nation is on legalisation now. All prohibition seems to achieve is to make a potentially harmful substance more harmful and places revenue in the hands of criminals rather than business and government.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Fine, as long as car users are paying their externalities properly. Sone of that is schemes like ULEZ, but it's also that car use makes towns and cities inefficient. You have to put stuff further apart to make room for cars. That makes services more expensive to provide and someone has to pick up the tab.
I've mentioned this group before, small state Americans really unkeen on extensive car provision:
So. Do you want Britain to be rich? Do you want it enough to use you car less and other types of transport more?
Starting with your desire and working backwards again I see. Now jumping from town to city trying desperately to grasp onto a point.
Yes I want Britain to be rich.
No I won't use my car less and less productive and less convenient modes of transportation more. Next question please.
Shame. I thought you were more into prosperity and economic rationality than that.
Yes, cars can travel faster. Quite a lot of the time. But those gains in speed get swallowed up- and then some- by the increased distances you have to build into your towns and cities to make cars work in them.
Its a mixture.
Walking is best in city centres and public transport possibly in inner urban areas.
But cars are far more effective than public transport for living in conurbation sprawls, medium sized towns and rural areas.
And giving the impression to the people who are in that third group that you're anti-car is politically damaging.
Given that cars have been getting less polluting and will continue to do so there's also the suspicion that the strategy is anti-car for reasons other than pollution.
The idea of the '15 minute city' feeds into this - living your life within a 15 minute walk of your home might be possible in the centre of London or Edinburgh or Oxford but it certainly isn't in most places.
I did a YouGov which asked if I approved of the decriminalization of cannabis.
Well I don't.
I support its legalisation.
What I oppose is the idea of decriminalization - the idea of something being illegal but the law not being applied.
I do wonder where the nation is on legalisation now. All prohibition seems to achieve is to make a potentially harmful substance more harmful and places revenue in the hands of criminals rather than business and government.
TBF, and at risk of being flippant, there are plenty of criminals among the latter groups too.
Woke up to the news of one excellent result for Sir Kid Starvers Party, one rubbish one and a very poor one resulting in a Con Gain in a Swindon Council seat in swing Town of Swindon.
I would say a 5/10 night that Kid Starver fans will spin as a 10/10 night. Well done to HYUFD too. Only put a fiver on at 8/1 and lost a fiver on Tories in Selby too.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
You are talking s***e as usual.
As someone who does 30,000 miles a year I take no s*** from a Sunday driver. I can tell you my worst blackspots. M42 around Solihull. M6 Junction 9 to the M54, the entire M25., the Brynglas Tunnel. I wouldn't dream of driving in central London anymore, Birmingham, an hour from Bristol Street to the M5. I could go on all day. If one needs to make an appointment one cannot rely on the motorcar, and use a smart motorway and if there has been an accident one can be, one, two, three hours late.
It is not the golden age of motoring, that is long gone.
It’s not too bad on the island, although you do get a bit of a queue sometimes at the roundabout at the end of our only bit of dual carriageway.
Few traffic jams in Scotland if you avoid Glasgow/Edinburgh city centres at peak work times. I was held up for about 20 seconds yesterday mind you by an inconsiderate delivery lorry.
Interesting byelections results. In terms of next year's general election, they don't change anything...
...However, in the long term, it's very disturbing. It demonstrates the kind of opposition which can be rallied to environmental policies and how easily the Conservatives could be seduced into leading it.
I don’t think people object to environmental policies per se, other than a very small band of flat earthers who don’t (at present) have measurable influence.
There are two issues: one is the rush to environmentalism relying on very short termist thinking that doesn’t actually measurably improve things or that will actually be counterproductive in the long term. The second is not selling these things properly and (in many peoples eyes) imposing them with executive fiat.
People support Net Zero stuff etc as long as for them it is free, the costs are borne by others, inconvenience is somewhere else, any personal pain is well into the future etc. Uxbridge is a lesson in general human nature. Parties will plan and campaign accordingly. bet accordingly.
What it shows is how Khan (and Burnham) have trapped themselves. Getting out of the Commons and getting some executive power seemed a no brainer when Labour were self destructing under that idiot Corbyn and it allowed them to avoid collateral damage but now, with Labour on the cusp of government, they look like forgotten men who will struggle to get back into front line politics, let alone the cabinet.
Khan is a canny operator. I doubt he cares too much. If you follow his twitter feed you will see his pronouncements are very much geared towards his base and his support. Any doubters or objectors are just dismissed. He is doing what he needs to in order to get re-elected and he will.
I agree he will be re-elected as Mayor but the path to a cabinet post is looking full of thorns.
I do wonder if the Conservatives will live to regret selecting a London Mayoral candidate when they did, from a weak field.
If nominations for the Conservative mayoral candidacy were opening now, I suspect they might actually have got more interest from more credible runners. It's clear they are on a good issue in outer London, but it feels likely that candidate quality will be an issue for them.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Bicycles are also widely used for commuting. When I lived in Germany, I used to cycle 5 miles to work every day, unless the weather was particularly bad. As well as saving me money, this kept me fit and left more space on the roads for those who needed to use their cars.
I would commute by bicycle here in the UK, but it's simply too dangerous and unpleasant, so that's another car added to the rush-hour traffic.
The idea that bikes are inherently recreational rather than utility vehicles is quite silly. They ought to be a perfectly good way of making practical 2-10 mile journeys (like commutes). They can (like cars!) absolutely be recreational too.
I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting replacing cars with bikes for long journeys. But most people don’t make long journeys that often.
Let’s be careful though, this thread carries an increasing risk of becoming about WFH.
The country is not setup for bikes and most people will not risk their lives dodging arsehole drivers. Not a hope of us being like Europeans whist our politicians are shit.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
Essentially, yes. I think that in a few years time we will se significant safety improvements on Welsh roads, and I think opponents are actually - behind the "my personal freedom to do XYZ" smoke-screen - worried that it will be shown to work. Just as LTNs have been working for well over half a century now.
Driving at more than 20mph (or usually less) in residential roads is purely a cultural expectation, and that can change.
One of the UK road safety outliers is the proportion of people killed on our roads who are pedestrians, and a
I have no problem with 20mph zones around schools and 'tight' residential streets but to mandate all 30mph zones as 20mph is ill thought out just as ULEZ is in outer London
Yes speed limits are part of this, it is not just ULEZ. Again a lot of 20mph zones should be only for daytimes - it is really weird driving at 15mph on near empty roads at midnight because the car ahead is scared of doing more than 20mph and the road designs have removed any opportunity to overtake.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Driving a bicycle can be very practical for a very large number of journeys. Not every journey, but I'm not a dogmatist who would propose one mode of transport is suitable for every journey.
Here in West Cork I'm finding driving is a lot easier than I ever found it anywhere in Britain. Where the population density is low a car comes into its own. But we visited Bath recently, using public transport when we were there this time - on a previous visit we'd driven, and in any sort of reasonably-sized urban area, using a car becomes nightmarish, and there are much better options.
My recommendation to you is to drive to the West of Ireland for a holiday. Experience the freedom of driving on roads where the worst traffic you have to worry about is an occasional tractor, or herd of cows. Then take yourself off for a holiday somewhere with good cycling infrastructure - some European city - and enjoy the freedom of being able to explore a city by bicycle, without having to battle the hassle of urban driving.
I think it would give you a broader perspective. You have a very narrow focus on car driving, and cannot imagine anything different.
When we were in Valencia, my son commented on the number of middle-aged women riding bicycles in normal clothes, obviously simply using a bike to get from A to B. Having grown up in the UK, it was something of a novelty to him that bikes could actually be used as practical transport by a wide range of people and not just for recreation by sporty types.
I remember chatting with a Danish colleague who had just bought an e-bike. I said “but isn’t that a cheat, surely the point of riding the bike to work is to get more exercise?” And he looked at me confused and said “the point of a bike is to get from a to b, isn’t it?”
for me, as I cycle to work when I can, it is both, It does not have to be one or the other.
Yep - my bike offers utility, recreation and exercise. Sometimes all at once! Even 150 years on, it remains a wonderful and relevant invention.
Rishi says this shows the next election is not a done deal.
He might want to tell his own MPs that, they are the ones quitting after a single term, announcing his own reshuffles for him, and saying they are standing down in droves.
Meanwhile Sir John Curtice tells Nick Robinson that the overnight results show the Tories are a long way behind, declining their vote by a greater margin than the opinion polls show...
Nobody can deny that it was a poor night but Uxbridge was unexpected, despite @HYUFD predictions, and for Sunak it must be a relief as he goes into recess
We are still 15 months away from a GE and events happen, including what happens in Scotland to the SNP
Hopefully Uxbridge will encourage Tory complacency. Brunel university being out of term will have helped them too.
What was the swing in Uxbridge? 6.7% from 2019. So if you apply that as UNS on electoral calculus on the new boundaries that gives you Lab largest party and 15 short of a majority. That’s without any SNP losses and no tactical voting.
So a Labour majority is quite possible even with Uxbridge-style swing.
Expectations management aside, the results seem objectively satisfying for Labour, as discussed here:
Uxbridge does stand out, because it was expected that the Tories would lose all three but, this is cold comfort for the Tories who are still staring down the barrel of a heavy election defeat.
Uxbridge tells everyone what tactics to use. It won't be pretty. Just note how people are not voting/campaigning over petrol cars generally. That's because the target for stopping new sales is 2030. If it was 2024 there would be 10 million votes in it. ULEZ, a comparative triviality is NOW not future. Go figure, bet accordingly.
(Prediction: the 2030 petrol car date won't survive.)
I think it will (or at most, delayed by a year or two). The difference is - as someone else posted upthread - that ULEZ has happened too fast for people to plan and purchase accordingly to avoid it. Not only was the ICE ban announced further ahead than most people's car purchase interval, it also won't affect those who already had one.
In any case, as long as the car industry believes the date, it'll be a done deal as investment decisions in manufacturing EVs will long-since have been made.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Bicycles are also widely used for commuting. When I lived in Germany, I used to cycle 5 miles to work every day, unless the weather was particularly bad. As well as saving me money, this kept me fit and left more space on the roads for those who needed to use their cars.
I would commute by bicycle here in the UK, but it's simply too dangerous and unpleasant, so that's another car added to the rush-hour traffic.
The idea that bikes are inherently recreational rather than utility vehicles is quite silly. They ought to be a perfectly good way of making practical 2-10 mile journeys (like commutes). They can (like cars!) absolutely be recreational too.
I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting replacing cars with bikes for long journeys. But most people don’t make long journeys that often.
Let’s be careful though, this thread carries an increasing risk of becoming about WFH.
The country is not setup for bikes and most people will not risk their lives dodging arsehole drivers. Not a hope of us being like Europeans whist our politicians are shit.
Neither was the Netherlands in the 60s - it took a lot of bold reforms and infrastructure against the run of public opinion.
You’re right about our politicians being shite though.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
Isn't that a teeny weeny bit depressing, though?
After all, most of those measures are about reducing the harms that cars do. ULEZ attempts to deal with some specific localised air pollution. Reducing speed limits makes accidents less likely and less harmful. That sort of thing. Tilting the balance between the benefits drivers get from driving and the costs that society pays.
One lesson of Uxbridge is that, at least in some seats, that's politically unacceptable. And whilst there's something in the "wrong moment" argument, the experience is that car restraint measures are rarely popular in advance. And there are plenty of other measures that any government is going to have to take in the next few years.
Are will still so pampered as a nation that we're going to spit out any nasty medicine?
The intention of a policy - reduction of pollution - may be good. While the implementation/methodology is bad.
What is politically unacceptable is saying that “those people who are poor and screwed over by this policy - well, the aim of the policy is good. So on consideration, and after some thought FUCK YOU, FUCKERS”.
ULEZ has become, in the eyes of some poorer people, a tax which has little or no cost on the well off. Who own expensive, frequently updated cars. And/Or can afford to life in the areas with the best public transport connections to their white collar jobs and don’t need a vehicle for work.
Something to understand as well. Those with cars in the “next tranche”, that tightening ULEZ will ban, are convinced that the next step is coming very soon and will be done in the same way. So far more than the 10% of car owners with non compliant vehicles are upset about this.
It is perfectly possible to come up with a way to reduce emissions that doesn’t do this. The ULEZ implementation was picked because it was cheap and easy - for the politicians and those running the system. Producer interest vs Consumer.
What would you suggest?
In nearly all the studies, the majority of the non CO2 pollutants were emitted by small sub categories of vehicles.
A while back, ancient rattling buses were a big offender. Which was why the then Major of London ordered hybrid replacements.
Heavy goods vehicles were another.
A subset of cars and small vehicles - badly maintained and clapped out - was another.
So one approach would be incremental on the worst actual offenders. Combined with a better directed scrapage scheme.
Consider these two tales - a relative drives a £90k EV. No congestion charge. No problems with ULEZ of course. When he wants to park in central London, he finds a dedicated EV charging bay - even if he’s doesn’t need to charge.
A friend of my wife lives next door to Uxbridge. 1st generation immigrant. Fought her way up to a low level white collar job. Nearly everyone around her is in manual or factory type work. She lives in a house that is close to Heathrow and with poor public transport links - because that is what she could afford. The bus is useless - since the conversion of bus lanes into cycle lanes, he buses move at the speed of traffic. On the high streets. If you live where she does, you have a car. So she pays car tax, fuel tax, parking etc.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
You're in danger of becoming the kinetic equivalent of the telephone sanitisers in Hitchhiker's Guide. It may add to the growth figures but wastes energy on doing nothing very useful much of the time.
I think he's trying to hit every economic fallacy in the textbook.
It's strange how many people consider driving good for economic activity. It's a cost, space and time sink. The only thing you can buy out of a car window is a McDonald's. An Edinburgh tram has 250 customers on it - that's equivalent to a a traffic jam nearly a mile long.
Perhaps my attitude to this comes from actually growing up in the countryside. It was amazing moving to a city and finding that thousands of people could spend their time having fun and spending money rather than driving for hours to get to the cinema in Inverness.
Oh great, now we are onto use trams as a solution.
There are a grand total of zero trams in my town, nor any demand for them. So which invisible tram should I magic up with my pixie dust?
Yes cities can be different. But most of the country IS NOT IN A CITY.
A large majority of people (80%) DO LIVE IN CITIES
AND THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE A TRAM
No. Just no.
A large majority of people live in urban areas. Which overwhelmingly means towns, not cities.
Most of the population lives in towns. Cities is a small minority.
What it shows is how Khan (and Burnham) have trapped themselves. Getting out of the Commons and getting some executive power seemed a no brainer when Labour were self destructing under that idiot Corbyn and it allowed them to avoid collateral damage but now, with Labour on the cusp of government, they look like forgotten men who will struggle to get back into front line politics, let alone the cabinet.
Khan is a canny operator. I doubt he cares too much. If you follow his twitter feed you will see his pronouncements are very much geared towards his base and his support. Any doubters or objectors are just dismissed. He is doing what he needs to in order to get re-elected and he will.
I agree he will be re-elected as Mayor but the path to a cabinet post is looking full of thorns.
I do wonder if the Conservatives will live to regret selecting a London Mayoral candidate when they did, from a weak field.
If nominations for the Conservative mayoral candidacy were opening now, I suspect they might actually have got more interest from more credible runners. It's clear they are on a good issue in outer London, but it feels likely that candidate quality will be an issue for them.
Do the London Conservatives have the equivalent of an Andy Street ?
In previous elections there's been suggestions they've wanted either Alan Sugar or Greg Dyke to be their candidate - both of whom were Labour supporters.
Just listening to JRM on R4 and it reminded me, thinking of his seat and the potential by election in Mid Beds, that hopefully Labour has learnt a lesson from these by elections re the swing to Lab & LDs.
If Labour fight Mid Beds hard the outcome is more likely to be a Tory hold. Just because you are in 2nd place does not make you the party with the best chance of winning if there is an anti Tory mood. Many Tories are more comfortable placing their protest vote with the LDs than Lab and the LDs are much, much, much better than Lab at by elections.
I don't believe that Lab can win seats like Mid Beds or JRMs seat. The LDs can, but not if Lab play a spoiler role.
Although more relevant to by elections it can impact seats in a GE and there is still a chance that Lab might need the LDs after the GE.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
There are very few reasons for driving here or in central London. But very large chunks of the population don't have this opportunity to make the switch. Public transport and walking cycling provision in our regional cities is pathetic - compare Liverpool to any French city. That has to come first.
What Khan and others need to do is to offer this carrot, and fast. We could have fully funded HS2 if we hadn't frozen fuel duty over the last few years. We need to explain that building more roads induces more demand, rather than sating it.
Inducing more demand is a good thing.
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
You're in danger of becoming the kinetic equivalent of the telephone sanitisers in Hitchhiker's Guide. It may add to the growth figures but wastes energy on doing nothing very useful much of the time.
I think he's trying to hit every economic fallacy in the textbook.
It's strange how many people consider driving good for economic activity. It's a cost, space and time sink. The only thing you can buy out of a car window is a McDonald's. An Edinburgh tram has 250 customers on it - that's equivalent to a a traffic jam nearly a mile long.
Perhaps my attitude to this comes from actually growing up in the countryside. It was amazing moving to a city and finding that thousands of people could spend their time having fun and spending money rather than driving for hours to get to the cinema in Inverness.
Oh great, now we are onto use trams as a solution.
There are a grand total of zero trams in my town, nor any demand for them. So which invisible tram should I magic up with my pixie dust?
Yes cities can be different. But most of the country IS NOT IN A CITY.
A large majority of people (80%) DO LIVE IN CITIES
AND THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE A TRAM
Meanwhile the inquiry into what went wrong with Edinburgh's trams is due any year now. I am beginning to suspect Lord Hardie want to publish it posthumously.
Oh bless Rishi in Uxbridge on Sky like an excited little schoolboy as if he's won the next election already. The new MP next to him not so smiley as if he's not that thrilled to have him there.
Of the 28 contested GB by-elections since the 2015 GE, the Tories winning Uxbridge was the biggest shock result, based on the polling day betting odds.
They were around 7/1 yesterday.
Uxbridge is the first by-election this century that the Tories have won as outsiders.
22/28 of those by-elections (78%) were won by the betting market favourite.
(This doesn't include the Southend West and Batley by-elections where major parties stood aside).
The other recent surprise results with the winner's odds on the day:
🟠 2021 North Shropshire LDs 11/8 🔴 2021 Batley & Spen Labour 5/1 🟠 2021 Chesham & Amersham LDs 6/1 🔴 2019 Peterborough Labour 6/1 🟠 2016 Richmond Park LDs 3/1
I’m struggling to see how Sunak has concluded the next election isn’t a done deal based on these results.
Yes they held Uxbridge by 495 votes - but the swing against them was also massive and they overturned the biggest majority they ever have in Selby, a seat which indicates they can win in the seats they need to.
As far as I can see, all this confirms is that Labour won’t win a super majority but instead quite possibly a large majority.
Sunak sounds like Corbyn after Labour won in Peterborough, not looking at how the votes changed and how narrowly they held it.
What it shows is how Khan (and Burnham) have trapped themselves. Getting out of the Commons and getting some executive power seemed a no brainer when Labour were self destructing under that idiot Corbyn and it allowed them to avoid collateral damage but now, with Labour on the cusp of government, they look like forgotten men who will struggle to get back into front line politics, let alone the cabinet.
Khan is a canny operator. I doubt he cares too much. If you follow his twitter feed you will see his pronouncements are very much geared towards his base and his support. Any doubters or objectors are just dismissed. He is doing what he needs to in order to get re-elected and he will.
I agree he will be re-elected as Mayor but the path to a cabinet post is looking full of thorns.
I do wonder if the Conservatives will live to regret selecting a London Mayoral candidate when they did, from a weak field.
If nominations for the Conservative mayoral candidacy were opening now, I suspect they might actually have got more interest from more credible runners. It's clear they are on a good issue in outer London, but it feels likely that candidate quality will be an issue for them.
Paul Scully could have won. If Corbyn runs it could still get interesting.
Oh bless Rishi in Uxbridge on Sky like an excited little schoolboy as if he's won the next election already. The new MP next to him not so smiley as if he's not that thrilled to have him there.
He should be if there's any validity of the Hindu/Asian Conservative boost theory.
Without wishing to defend Hands, unfortunately that is the way politicians always operate. Who can forget Blears' infamous 'there's no doubt this was a disastrous night for the Tories' on the day Labour came fourth in Bromley and Chislehurst* and failed to retake Blaenau Gwent?
*Interestingly the candidate for Labour who suffered this humiliation was Rachel Reeves.
And on the flip side oppositions treat winning safe seats at by elections as significant and a sign the country has turned against government.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
An urban speed limit of 20 mph in Wales is a lot like ULEZ expansion. It isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the speed and lack of thought in which it is being implemented.
Transport policy is a disaster nationally. There are too many cars, not enough infrastructure (including alternative transport). Driving anywhere is horrendous, particularly in cities. Now that the current Government in Westminster have learned anti - green, anti- safety issues win votes, it is a situation that will undoubtedly get worse.
This is the BS.
Driving anywhere, except a tiny minority of the country in inner cities, is pleasant and convenient. Not horrendous.
Driving is the most freeing, the most liberating, the most self-controlled means of transportation people have in the modern, developed world.
Relying upon others, on 'public transportation' is a farce and a pathetic joke outside of a tiny number of metropolises, and it always will be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with private transportation. Either environmentally, once we switch to clean technologies, or progressively, or for a matter of convenience.
Personally, I find driving a car is shit everywhere. A bicycle is way more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong environmentally if we pretend hard enough.
I know you like to be the king of wishful thinking, but isn't this a bit much eve for you?
A bicycle is enjoyable for having fun. It is a social activity.
When it comes to moving a serious distance, or moving multiple people a distance, or moving a heavy or bulky quantity of goods - nothing comes close to a private vehicle.
And no pretence necessary. Electric cars are the future, not replacing an eighty mile journey to see relatives with riding a bicycle down the M6.
Driving a bicycle can be very practical for a very large number of journeys. Not every journey, but I'm not a dogmatist who would propose one mode of transport is suitable for every journey.
Here in West Cork I'm finding driving is a lot easier than I ever found it anywhere in Britain. Where the population density is low a car comes into its own. But we visited Bath recently, using public transport when we were there this time - on a previous visit we'd driven, and in any sort of reasonably-sized urban area, using a car becomes nightmarish, and there are much better options.
My recommendation to you is to drive to the West of Ireland for a holiday. Experience the freedom of driving on roads where the worst traffic you have to worry about is an occasional tractor, or herd of cows. Then take yourself off for a holiday somewhere with good cycling infrastructure - some European city - and enjoy the freedom of being able to explore a city by bicycle, without having to battle the hassle of urban driving.
I think it would give you a broader perspective. You have a very narrow focus on car driving, and cannot imagine anything different.
When we were in Valencia, my son commented on the number of middle-aged women riding bicycles in normal clothes, obviously simply using a bike to get from A to B. Having grown up in the UK, it was something of a novelty to him that bikes could actually be used as practical transport by a wide range of people and not just for recreation by sporty types.
I remember chatting with a Danish colleague who had just bought an e-bike. I said “but isn’t that a cheat, surely the point of riding the bike to work is to get more exercise?” And he looked at me confused and said “the point of a bike is to get from a to b, isn’t it?”
for me, as I cycle to work when I can, it is both, It does not have to be one or the other.
I have an e-cargo bike. I have had 4 small children in it - more than I've ever had in a car. Alternatively several people can ride their own bicycles! I know this is a very difficult solution to think of. I can fit a hell of a lot of shopping in it. For journeys up to 5 km it's easily quicker and more convenient than a car, also for most journeys up to 8km or more. Admittedly I live in a city (as do millions of others). For someone to think a bicycle is only for leisure is pretty bizarre.
As is believing that because more electric cars are coming in the future that means there are no environmental problems.
I live in the UK's most congested city, Edinburgh, yet we have the the best public transport system in Scotland and the city is about as walkable as they come. Cycling is getting there. A small, rich minority cause congestion for everyone else.
The council(s) over many years have tried to reduce the number of cars in the city centre by closing roads and eliminating parking. it hasn't reduced the number of cars, it just makes the remaining roads more congested. And forces businesses to close.
Your comparison needs perhaps to be with what *would* have happened had those restrictions not been introduced.
I think in Edinburgh it is difficult to comment yet - they are still building things which process inhibits circulation of all travel modes; and TBF the thing has been a bit of a dog's breakfast, between the Council not listening to people who knew what they were talking about, various imbroglios including with the Scottish Government, and a lot of other things.
The latest I am aware of is that people are parking or pausing their motor vehicles blocking tram tracks, and the authorities are doing nothing around effective enforcement, instead sitting on their butts.
Oh bless Rishi in Uxbridge on Sky like an excited little schoolboy as if he's won the next election already. The new MP next to him not so smiley as if he's not that thrilled to have him there.
It is the first good news he's had as PM since he sorted out NI.
Good morning, one and all. Interesting set up by election results, and of course congratulations.to HYUFC for calling Uxbridge correctly. However, there’s another feature that nobody appears to have commented upon. The LibDem vote in Selby and Uxbridge collapsed as did the Labour vote in the west country. Are we actually seeing tactical voting?
Yes.. and I think we did in previous high-profile by-elections too (eg North Shropshire where Lab was safely second but realised LDs were best-placed to hoover up disaffected Tories).
But that's easier in a by-election where (a) there's a smaller and more active turnout, (b) waaaay less national noise meaning the message can get out and (c) a willingness to dick around because the future govt isn't at stake. It's ambitious to think the same effect can be mobilised in a GE.
Just listening to JRM on R4 and it reminded me, thinking of his seat and the potential by election in Mid Beds, that hopefully Labour has learnt a lesson from these by elections re the swing to Lab & LDs.
If Labour fight Mid Beds hard the outcome is more likely to be a Tory hold. Just because you are in 2nd place does not make you the party with the best chance of winning if there is an anti Tory mood. Many Tories are more comfortable placing their protest vote with the LDs than Lab and the LDs are much, much, much better than Lab at by elections.
I don't believe that Lab can win seats like Mid Beds or JRMs seat. The LDs can, but not if Lab play a spoiler role.
Although more relevant to by elections it can impact seats in a GE and there is still a chance that Lab might need the LDs after the GE.
Mogg's seat was Labour between 1997 and 2010.
If Labour don't target it its effectively an admission they cannot win a majority.
I’m struggling to see how Sunak has concluded the next election isn’t a done deal based on these results.
Yes they held Uxbridge by 495 votes - but the swing against them was also massive and they overturned the biggest majority they ever have in Selby, a seat which indicates they can win in the seats they need to.
As far as I can see, all this confirms is that Labour won’t win a super majority but instead quite possibly a large majority.
Sunak sounds like Corbyn after Labour won in Peterborough, not looking at how the votes changed and how narrowly they held it.
The Tories are in big trouble.
Both are true. It isn't a done deal and Tories are in big trouble. Yes, Tories will lose, but have a real prospect of NOM. This would be a win in three ways - it goes against current expectations, the GE 2024 will be a good one to lose, and NOM would mean the Tories will up against an unpopular LD and Lab in 2028/9.
Congratulations to @HYUFD who said the conservatives would hold Uxbridge
Also a lot of humble pie is needed by all those who dismissed ULEZ as an issue
In the wider context the war against the car is not labour's friend
I'm still not convinced by ULEZ as an issue in London - in a few outer seats, maybe, and imo not in the mayoral election.
However it remains that around 90% of vehicles are *already* compliant, so the number of voters actually affected will be very small. Not sure how it will play electorally - we'll see. I don't see it saving Tory bacon - the outraged gammon vote in Outer London is not imo dominant enough.
Perhaps it's more interesting in the other cities which are introducing Low Emission Zones across the country. Those places where there has not been investment in public transport are perhaps exposed, though there's not a clear correlation.
This is a 2021 graphic, so it may have changed a little.
I think it is the first evidence that the war on cars may not play into labour's hands
It certainly played a part in Uxbridge and already we see calls to move the 2030 deadline for all new cars to be EV and here in Wales we have Drakeford cancelling all new road building, including the 3rd Menai crossing notwithstanding Holyhead is to become a free port, and the ideological change of all 30mph zones in Wales to 20mph by default
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next 15 months
Remember what happens when labour ignore WVM
Isn't that a teeny weeny bit depressing, though?
After all, most of those measures are about reducing the harms that cars do. ULEZ attempts to deal with some specific localised air pollution. Reducing speed limits makes accidents less likely and less harmful. That sort of thing. Tilting the balance between the benefits drivers get from driving and the costs that society pays.
One lesson of Uxbridge is that, at least in some seats, that's politically unacceptable. And whilst there's something in the "wrong moment" argument, the experience is that car restraint measures are rarely popular in advance. And there are plenty of other measures that any government is going to have to take in the next few years.
Are will still so pampered as a nation that we're going to spit out any nasty medicine?
The intention of a policy - reduction of pollution - may be good. While the implementation/methodology is bad.
What is politically unacceptable is saying that “those people who are poor and screwed over by this policy - well, the aim of the policy is good. So on consideration, and after some thought FUCK YOU, FUCKERS”.
ULEZ has become, in the eyes of some poorer people, a tax which has little or no cost on the well off. Who own expensive, frequently updated cars. And/Or can afford to life in the areas with the best public transport connections to their white collar jobs and don’t need a vehicle for work.
Something to understand as well. Those with cars in the “next tranche”, that tightening ULEZ will ban, are convinced that the next step is coming very soon and will be done in the same way. So far more than the 10% of car owners with non compliant vehicles are upset about this.
It is perfectly possible to come up with a way to reduce emissions that doesn’t do this. The ULEZ implementation was picked because it was cheap and easy - for the politicians and those running the system. Producer interest vs Consumer.
What would you suggest?
In nearly all the studies, the majority of the non CO2 pollutants were emitted by small sub categories of vehicles.
A while back, ancient rattling buses were a big offender. Which was why the then Major of London ordered hybrid replacements.
Heavy goods vehicles were another.
A subset of cars and small vehicles - badly maintained and clapped out - was another.
So one approach would be incremental on the worst actual offenders. Combined with a better directed scrapage scheme.
Consider these two tales - a relative drives a £90k EV. No congestion charge. No problems with ULEZ of course. When he wants to park in central London, he finds a dedicated EV charging bay - even if he’s doesn’t need to charge.
A friend of my wife lives next door to Uxbridge. 1st generation immigrant. Fought her way up to a low level white collar job. Nearly everyone around her is in manual or factory type work. She lives in a house that is close to Heathrow and with poor public transport links - because that is what she could afford. The bus is useless - since the conversion of bus lanes into cycle lanes, he buses move at the speed of traffic. On the high streets. If you live where she does, you have a car. So she pays car tax, fuel tax, parking etc.
Converting bus lanes to cycle lanes seems an odd thing to do. Aren't bus lanes generally also used as cycle lanes anyway?
Good morning, one and all. Interesting set up by election results, and of course congratulations.to HYUFC for calling Uxbridge correctly. However, there’s another feature that nobody appears to have commented upon. The LibDem vote in Selby and Uxbridge collapsed as did the Labour vote in the west country. Are we actually seeing tactical voting?
Yes.. and I think we did in previous high-profile by-elections too (eg North Shropshire where Lab was safely second but realised LDs were best-placed to hoover up disaffected Tories).
But that's easier in a by-election where (a) there's a smaller and more active turnout, (b) waaaay less national noise meaning the message can get out and (c) a willingness to dick around because the future govt isn't at stake. It's ambitious to think the same effect can be mobilised in a GE.
To the same degree certainly. I think it'd be reasonable to suggest it means Selby and Somerton are likely to be regained by the Tories, but similar seats around 10k or so are very much in play.
Comments
That's how you get economic growth. Greater aggregate demand.
What that means is that instead of a drivetrain which would run forever, we have a ludicrous thing with a power band absurdly narrow. And a nagging indicator for when you should change gear. Which isn't when it says. And the mild hybrid? As well as cutting the engine at traffic lights, it also advises you to coast in neutral - again with the engine off.
Frankly they have ruined a thoroughly good car. I am an advocate for proper hybrids and EVs, but this is my first "mild" hybrid and its bloody awful.
Interesting set up by election results, and of course congratulations.to HYUFC for calling Uxbridge correctly. However, there’s another feature that nobody appears to have commented upon. The LibDem vote in Selby and Uxbridge collapsed as did the Labour
vote in the west country. Are we actually seeing tactical voting?
What is most wrong about ULEZ is the haste in which people are being forced to retrospectively revise earlier choices that they were at one time encouraged to make, at enormous cost. It amounts to retrospective taxation.
Owners of pre-2015 diesel vehicles should have been put on notice that they had 5 or so years to change their vehicle, unless it was already say at least 15 years old. That would still have prompted a change of behaviour, but at a pace that was slow enough to avoid financial distress.
And, as you say, in the absence of a reasoned approach to implementation then those whose cars may at this point still be compliant should be very fearful that it won't be long before they'll be next in line.
But this is Britain. So we do neither. The opportunity then was to drive work from home - cut the number of journeys by any mode. And we've screwed that up as well.
Driving at more than 20mph (or usually less) in residential roads is purely a cultural expectation, and that can change.
One of the UK road safety outliers is the proportion of people killed on our roads who are pedestrians, and a <20mph driving speed is the speed at which mixing of people driving motor vehicles with other road users becomes reasonably safe. And since it is the motor vehicles that are the practical cause of death, it is the motor vehicles that need to be controlled.
I think that in 25 years time those currently defending driving down tight residential streets at 30mph limit plus 5mph speeding allowance will be viewed the same way as those who defended drinking and driving as "I know that I'm safe and it's my right" in 1967, and those who defend handheld mobile phone usage in a not-parked motor vehicle now.
There are two issues: one is the rush to environmentalism relying on very short termist thinking that doesn’t actually measurably improve things or that will actually be counterproductive in the long term. The second is not selling these things properly and (in many peoples eyes) imposing them with executive fiat.
If the Tories think this opens the door to an anti-environment strategy for the GE they’re off their collective rocker. This is about brass in pocket, is will the GE be.
You have a weird zero-sum take on this that doesn't consider how infrastructure interacts with demand.
Another example you see all the time: "There are no cyclists on xx High Street - why are we wasting money on a cycle lane ". One if the main reasons why people don't cycle is a lack of safe provision.
Well I don't.
I support its legalisation.
What I oppose is the idea of decriminalization - the idea of something being illegal but the law not being applied.
Whether that be working, or shopping, or recreation.
Which of those do you want to do without? Which of those is a bad thing to have more of?
Well, maybe not all of them, but I don't think that's anything to do with the bicycles.
I'm shy about predicting the next year, yet alone the next ten.
Sounds like you should given the issues.
My Wife's EV is great. A good car which gives excellent performance and, for the extra we paid for it, the saving on fuel is large
Nick Robinson: "We're joined by John Curtice and Chris Mason. I wouldn't be disrespectful enough to laugh at your answer but they just did."
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1682288716809658370?s=20
As always a balance is needed. There are a stack of shovel-ready road schemes which the government should have funded as an economic driver. At the same time we need to be cutting traffic in towns and cities which means more bypasses and more traffic free zones.
The LDs have long known that the way to win elections is to have two policies; the national one and the opposite local one.
Labour and Tory can see from Uxbridge the salience of this. It is particularly effective in issues where salience is possible - unlike perhaps tax, pensions, health which are not universally localisable.
But the big issues this can be done with are green stuff (see Uxbridge) and housing (ask the LDs).
Not much is politics is truthful; the issue is what is possible. It is possible to campaign nationally for X billion houses and Net Zero by next Tuesday, while telling every single local area and constituency that this applies to everyone except you.
The evidence that this wins elections is strong. As strong as the evidence (ask Sir K) that you win elections by promising no tax cuts, and no expenditure cuts but also no expenditure increases.
We are in for some interesting campaigning, with North Korean levels of accuracy.
It's strange how many people consider driving good for economic activity. It's a cost, space and time sink. The only thing you can buy out of a car window is a McDonald's. An Edinburgh tram has 250 customers on it - that's equivalent to a a traffic jam nearly a mile long.
Perhaps my attitude to this comes from actually growing up in the countryside. It was amazing moving to a city and finding that thousands of people could spend their time having fun and spending money rather than driving for hours to get to the cinema in Inverness.
Venice population 0.265 million
Yeah that's comparable. 🤦♂️
Drivers in LA will be travelling faster than cyclists in Venice, with or without congestion.
Not that congestion is that big of a problem in most of the country. Certainly not with enough road building.
Uxbridge does stand out, because it was expected that the Tories would lose all three but, this is cold comfort for the Tories who are still staring down the barrel of a heavy election defeat.
Of course that will never stop people using them to make the points they want to make, and obviously this is a political betting site and they are excellent betting events, but those trying to read the runes about the outcome of the late-2024 general election are almost certainly wasting their time.
https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/investigation-whos-driving-the-anti-electric-car-agenda-and-why/287135
There are a grand total of zero trams in my town, nor any demand for them. So which invisible tram should I magic up with my pixie dust?
Yes cities can be different. But most of the country IS NOT IN A CITY.
Looks to me like many just sat on their hands.
It doesn't mean "being illegal but the law not being applied". It means it becomes a civil rather than criminal offence.
So, for example, a parking ticket is a civil rather than criminal matter - poor parking doesn't give you a criminal record. But if you park on a double yellow line, you'll fairly quickly learn that the (civil) law is still very much applied.
*Interestingly the candidate for Labour who suffered this humiliation was Rachel Reeves.
The difference between the Selby and Uxbridge result is that one is typical of the national mood in most of the seats where Labour is in 2nd place and the other is typical only of the local mood in ULEZ-affected Outer London.
The Somerton and Frome result is relevant to LD target seats, but there are only 50 or so of them. Ed Davey isn't going to be PM with 50 MPs.
The big takeaway from last night is that tactical voting is massive, of benefit to both Labour and Lib Dems. Up to now you've been arguing here that it isn't. Have you changed your mind now?
A perfect calamity
He’s also said the party need to support Rishi. Toenails nearly fell off his chair.
(Prediction: the 2030 petrol car date won't survive.)
Remember, you have to be behind somebody before stabbing them in the back.
I can't stress enough that once you've changed to an electric drivetrain, you'll never want to go back to gears. Even if the running cost was the same - and as you point out it isn't - the driving experience of an EV is just so much better.
The Lads are masters of the local issue by election, they don't consistently hold those seats at GEs.
Could make the difference in some seats, though.
EDIT: Lads should be LDs
AND THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE A TRAM
That exception is somebody I utterly despise, whose policies are junk, and whose nastiness is legendary, but he is at least honest.
It's John McDonnell.
What a wally Boris must feel.
Walking is best in city centres and public transport possibly in inner urban areas.
But cars are far more effective than public transport for living in conurbation sprawls, medium sized towns and rural areas.
And giving the impression to the people who are in that third group that you're anti-car is politically damaging.
Given that cars have been getting less polluting and will continue to do so there's also the suspicion that the strategy is anti-car for reasons other than pollution.
The idea of the '15 minute city' feeds into this - living your life within a 15 minute walk of your home might be possible in the centre of London or Edinburgh or Oxford but it certainly isn't in most places.
I would say a 5/10 night that Kid Starver fans will spin as a 10/10 night. Well done to HYUFD too. Only put a fiver on at 8/1 and lost a fiver on Tories in Selby too.
If nominations for the Conservative mayoral candidacy were opening now, I suspect they might actually have got more interest from more credible runners. It's clear they are on a good issue in outer London, but it feels likely that candidate quality will be an issue for them.
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1682293763308150784?s=20
He might want to tell his own MPs that, they are the ones quitting after a single term, announcing his own reshuffles for him, and saying they are standing down in droves.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/21/byelection-results-paint-ominous-picture-tories-despite-uxbridge-win
The Tories exploited ULEZ effectively but that's not a formula for national success, and the Selby and Somerton results are both landslide territory.
In any case, as long as the car industry believes the date, it'll be a done deal as investment decisions in manufacturing EVs will long-since have been made.
You’re right about our politicians being shite though.
A while back, ancient rattling buses were a big offender. Which was why the then Major of London ordered hybrid replacements.
Heavy goods vehicles were another.
A subset of cars and small vehicles - badly maintained and clapped out - was another.
So one approach would be incremental on the worst actual offenders. Combined with a better directed scrapage scheme.
Consider these two tales - a relative drives a £90k EV. No congestion charge. No problems with ULEZ of course. When he wants to park in central London, he finds a dedicated EV charging bay - even if he’s doesn’t need to charge.
A friend of my wife lives next door to Uxbridge. 1st generation immigrant. Fought her way up to a low level white collar job. Nearly everyone around her is in manual or factory type work. She lives in a house that is close to Heathrow and with poor public transport links - because that is what she could afford. The bus is useless - since the conversion of bus lanes into cycle lanes, he buses move at the speed of traffic. On the high streets. If you live where she does, you have a car. So she pays car tax, fuel tax, parking etc.
A large majority of people live in urban areas. Which overwhelmingly means towns, not cities.
Most of the population lives in towns. Cities is a small minority.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/understandingtownsinenglandandwalespopulationanddemographicanalysis/2021-02-24#:~:text=Total population and population change, 2001 to 2019&text=In 2019, nearly 33 million,smaller towns over 8 million.
In previous elections there's been suggestions they've wanted either Alan Sugar or Greg Dyke to be their candidate - both of whom were Labour supporters.
If Labour fight Mid Beds hard the outcome is more likely to be a Tory hold. Just because you are in 2nd place does not make you the party with the best chance of winning if there is an anti Tory mood. Many Tories are more comfortable placing their protest vote with the LDs than Lab and the LDs are much, much, much better than Lab at by elections.
I don't believe that Lab can win seats like Mid Beds or JRMs seat. The LDs can, but not if Lab play a spoiler role.
Although more relevant to by elections it can impact seats in a GE and there is still a chance that Lab might need the LDs after the GE.
They were around 7/1 yesterday.
Uxbridge is the first by-election this century that the Tories have won as outsiders.
22/28 of those by-elections (78%) were won by the betting market favourite.
(This doesn't include the Southend West and Batley by-elections where major parties stood aside).
The other recent surprise results with the winner's odds on the day:
🟠 2021 North Shropshire LDs 11/8
🔴 2021 Batley & Spen Labour 5/1
🟠 2021 Chesham & Amersham LDs 6/1
🔴 2019 Peterborough Labour 6/1
🟠 2016 Richmond Park LDs 3/1
https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1682281425695916033
Yes they held Uxbridge by 495 votes - but the swing against them was also massive and they overturned the biggest majority they ever have in Selby, a seat which indicates they can win in the seats they need to.
As far as I can see, all this confirms is that Labour won’t win a super majority but instead quite possibly a large majority.
Sunak sounds like Corbyn after Labour won in Peterborough, not looking at how the votes changed and how narrowly they held it.
The Tories are in big trouble.
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1682285803018256384?s=20
As is believing that because more electric cars are coming in the future that means there are no environmental problems.
I think in Edinburgh it is difficult to comment yet - they are still building things which process inhibits circulation of all travel modes; and TBF the thing has been a bit of a dog's breakfast, between the Council not listening to people who knew what they were talking about, various imbroglios including with the Scottish Government, and a lot of other things.
The latest I am aware of is that people are parking or pausing their motor vehicles blocking tram tracks, and the authorities are doing nothing around effective enforcement, instead sitting on their butts.
Looking at the numbers, miles travelled by cars and taxis in the City of Edinburgh actually *fell* between 2002 to 2018. I am not sure what happened in 2018/19.
https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-authorities/29#:~:text=1.69 billion vehicle miles were,City of Edinburgh in 2021.
(Edited)
But that's easier in a by-election where (a) there's a smaller and more active turnout, (b) waaaay less national noise meaning the message can get out and (c) a willingness to dick around because the future govt isn't at stake. It's ambitious to think the same effect can be mobilised in a GE.
If Labour don't target it its effectively an admission they cannot win a majority.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-reportedly-used-millions-210409442.html
(Very stupid if true. And if his board did not approve it, then potentially gross misconduct. Why do this shit when you're the world's richest man?)