Ukraine is in ruins. Its latest counteroffensive achieved nothing. In the last three weeks, an estimated 26,000 Ukrainian soldiers died in pointless attacks against world-class Russian defenses.
Do you agree that Greggs meal deal of hot sandwich, potato wedges and a coffee is the best on the British High Street? £4.80.
Close runner up is the Sainsbury's Brie, Bacon and Chili Chutney sandwich, sour cream pringles and innocent smoothie at £3.50. Co-op is also good value, as their "snacks" are much more substantial than their competitors at £4.
And the Tesco Meal Deal. Still a player even after the price hike. On the COLIV crisis though, a quick but relevant observation from me:
The M&S 'dine in for a tenner' used to be starter, main, side, pudding and a bottle of wine. This has become 'the £12 bistro' which is main, side, pudding OR starter, and no wine whatsoever.
The inflation there, when you unravel and extrapolate, is absolutely terrifying.
I hadn't noticed that because I just tend to get what I fancy rather than assembling these kinds of multibuy deals, but I'm actually quite surprised that M&S did that - rather than just adjusting the dine in from £10 to £15 or £20. The M&S customer is the least price sensitive consumer in the grocery market - which is how come they've not bothered to launch a budget line, which even Waitrose has done, and they've not gone in for mass shrinkflation of products rather than simply jacking up the price of everything repeatedly. It seems unnecessarily parsimonious for a chain that's focussed on a clientele that has, within the boundaries of common sense, money to burn on its goodies and treats.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
In his book "A Shepherd's Life" James Rebanks writes very movingly about the attachment to and love of land and why success should not just be measured by how easily people move away from a place where their families have been for generations and have have made. That chapter is one of the best things I have ever read - not just in how it is written but in what it says and what it has made me think about over the years, to me the mark of great writing.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).
Hence why Truss would have seen the Tories near wiped out had she remained leader, losing traditionally Conservative rural areas as well as swing seats in the suburbs and towns due to her budget disaster.
Truss was always more of an ideological laissez faire libertarian than a traditional conservative Tory
*sigh* I'll bite.
You really think Truss disclosing to Rory Stewart that she was cynical about the Rural Affairs part of her brief nearly 10 years ago has any bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of her hypothetical success there in the 2025 election? That's an argument so weak it doesn't even class as clutching a straw.
You need to forgive yourself for supporting Sunak. It seemed right to you at the time, as it did to many others. What counts now is looking forward, beyond him. Ideally, beyond him will come before the Tory wipeout.
Truss is in a very large part why we are where we are and the market reaction to her idiotic few weeks demanded responsibility as per Sunak and is even influencing Starmer and Reeves today
No amount of hubris over Truss is going to conceal that both her time and Johnson have had a catastrophic consequence for the conservatives and resulted in Sunak
If Nato isn't prepared, in spite of its enormous naval supremacy in the region, to stand up to Russia in and around the Black sea, what message does that send to China over Taiwan?
France, the UK, Canada, Germany and Italy and Poland and Turkey aligned should easily be able to contain Putin’s Russia even without the US, as Ukraine has shown it can with support. Russia as has been seen post Ukraine invasion is now only a medium power economically and militarily just with lots of nukes but we and the French also have nukes.
China however is now firmly the main superpower rival to the US, not Russia/USSR as last century, so the West needs the US to lead on containing China
Serious question is how many men does ukraine sacrifice for a perhaps futile cause and whether it would be better to freeze things as they are. Disappointing and not ideal though.
I seem to remember the mass murderer Putin making very much that argument after he seized Crimea. How did that work out for 'freezing' things ?
Octopuses are charming animals; Russian concern trolls are not.
Yes but you wont be doing the fighting its ukrainian men who are dying.
Ukraine has chosen to fight your bunch of fascists - having experienced what it's like to be ruled by them. I know that came as a surprise to the master strategist in the Kremlin.
And they may have to live under them now as a destroyed state. Sad but true.
Now banned. 27 posts. Wasn't the furthest our Saturday chums ever got around 50 posts. Ah well, same time next week no doubt
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
Doesn’t the movie completely ignore the fact that Oppenheimer was a commie and someone leaked the nuke secrets to Stalin?
Not that this makes it necessarily a bad film. Quite an omission if true, tho (I have not seen it)
The whole fucking film is about Oppy being a Commie, and his wife, mistress, brother, sister in law, and all friends.
Except he wasn't. Plenty of friends and relatives who were, though.
The traitor who leaked from Los Alamos was a German Brit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs (Good scientist, though, who did some fundamental work in the project.)
Now I’m confused. So the movie says Oppenheimer was a communist - but he wasn’t? Quite the libel
While centrist swing voters may now vote for whichever of Labour or the LDs are closest to the Tories as they want a change of government I don’t think that is true for ideological left wingers.
After the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government they still don’t trust the Liberal Democrats and will therefore stick to voting Labour regardless or Green if they are Corbynistas who think Starmer too right wing
Good Afternoon everyone. Bit late posting today. I’m ex-Lib, not an enthusiastic LibDem; before that I was Labour, and I wasn’t keen on the Coalition. So I’m tempted, or would be if I was less repelled by the Tories, to vote Green.
While centrist swing voters may now vote for whichever of Labour or the LDs are closest to the Tories as they want a change of government I don’t think that is true for ideological left wingers.
After the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government they still don’t trust the Liberal Democrats and will therefore stick to voting Labour regardless or Green if they are Corbynistas who think Starmer too right wing
The evidence of the by-elections suggests that the Green vote may hold up quite well in a GE, but that most Labour voters are indeed prepared to back a Liberal Democrat if necessary. Hence the lost deposit in Somerset.
The hard left were able to scrape together the numbers to take over the Labour Party, but they're not a significant element of the wider electorate.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
In his book "A Shepherd's Life" James Rebanks writes very movingly about the attachment to and love of land and why success should not just be measured by how easily people move away from a place where their families have been for generations and have have made. That chapter is one of the best things I have ever read - not just in how it is written but in what it says and what it has made me think about over the years, to me the mark of great writing.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).
Hence why Truss would have seen the Tories near wiped out had she remained leader, losing traditionally Conservative rural areas as well as swing seats in the suburbs and towns due to her budget disaster.
Truss was always more of an ideological laissez faire libertarian than a traditional conservative Tory
*sigh* I'll bite.
You really think Truss disclosing to Rory Stewart that she was cynical about the Rural Affairs part of her brief nearly 10 years ago has any bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of her hypothetical success there in the 2025 election? That's an argument so weak it doesn't even class as clutching a straw.
You need to forgive yourself for supporting Sunak. It seemed right to you at the time, as it did to many others. What counts now is looking forward, beyond him. Ideally, beyond him will come before the Tory wipeout.
Truss’ Australia trade deal was hardly focused on protecting British farmers’ interests first either.
Under Truss in her last weeks as PM polls showed the Tories heading for Canada 1993 style wipeout, now most polls and the local elections and Uxbridge by election show Sunak has at least got the Tories back to Major 1997 levels and closer with Starmer still as preferred PM
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
Doesn’t the movie completely ignore the fact that Oppenheimer was a commie and someone leaked the nuke secrets to Stalin?
Not that this makes it necessarily a bad film. Quite an omission if true, tho (I have not seen it)
The whole fucking film is about Oppy being a Commie, and his wife, mistress, brother, sister in law, and all friends.
Except he wasn't. Plenty of friends and relatives who were, though.
The traitor who leaked from Los Alamos was a German Brit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs (Good scientist, though, who did some fundamental work in the project.)
Now I’m confused. So the movie says Oppenheimer was a communist - but he wasn’t? Quite the libel
Much controversy over this, but it's pretty likely he wasn't. 'Fellow traveller', certainly. Though that is in the context of pre-war America, of course.
Too much of an intellectual omnivore to believe in communist ideology, I think. (Which is also what stopped his belonging to the very top rank of physicists, despite his great intellect.)
If Nato isn't prepared, in spite of its enormous naval supremacy in the region, to stand up to Russia in and around the Black sea, what message does that send to China over Taiwan?
On the other hand, (most of) Taiwan is across a significant stretch of the Pacific Ocean, defended by a well armed adversory. Said adversory has a modern air force with latest gen F16s and Dassault fighters. As well as a growing fleet of submarines.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow
So then it becomes a question of how long Putin can stay in power and how long the west will support kyiv without question, and whether some of Putin’s madder gambles (closing the Black Sea) swing world opinion for or against
And all the while, China waits to pounce on Taiwan
Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
In his book "A Shepherd's Life" James Rebanks writes very movingly about the attachment to and love of land and why success should not just be measured by how easily people move away from a place where their families have been for generations and have have made. That chapter is one of the best things I have ever read - not just in how it is written but in what it says and what it has made me think about over the years, to me the mark of great writing.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).
Hence why Truss would have seen the Tories near wiped out had she remained leader, losing traditionally Conservative rural areas as well as swing seats in the suburbs and towns due to her budget disaster.
Truss was always more of an ideological laissez faire libertarian than a traditional conservative Tory
*sigh* I'll bite.
You really think Truss disclosing to Rory Stewart that she was cynical about the Rural Affairs part of her brief nearly 10 years ago has any bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of her hypothetical success there in the 2025 election? That's an argument so weak it doesn't even class as clutching a straw.
You need to forgive yourself for supporting Sunak. It seemed right to you at the time, as it did to many others. What counts now is looking forward, beyond him. Ideally, beyond him will come before the Tory wipeout.
Truss’ Australia trade deal was hardly focused on protecting British farmers’ interests first either.
Under Truss in her last weeks as PM polls showed the Tories heading for Canada 1993 style wipeout, now most polls and the local elections and Uxbridge by election show Sunak has at least got the Tories back to Major 1997 levels and closer with Starmer still as preferred PM
And as we have established, you have zero evidence that the very modest gains made by the Tories under Sunak wouldn't also have happened under Truss.
Ukraine is in ruins. Its latest counteroffensive achieved nothing. In the last three weeks, an estimated 26,000 Ukrainian soldiers died in pointless attacks against world-class Russian defenses.
Do you agree that Greggs meal deal of hot sandwich, potato wedges and a coffee is the best on the British High Street? £4.80.
Close runner up is the Sainsbury's Brie, Bacon and Chili Chutney sandwich, sour cream pringles and innocent smoothie at £3.50. Co-op is also good value, as their "snacks" are much more substantial than their competitors at £4.
And the Tesco Meal Deal. Still a player even after the price hike. On the COLIV crisis though, a quick but relevant observation from me:
The M&S 'dine in for a tenner' used to be starter, main, side, pudding and a bottle of wine. This has become 'the £12 bistro' which is main, side, pudding OR starter, and no wine whatsoever.
The inflation there, when you unravel and extrapolate, is absolutely terrifying.
I hadn't noticed that because I just tend to get what I fancy rather than assembling these kinds of multibuy deals, but I'm actually quite surprised that M&S did that - rather than just adjusting the dine in from £10 to £15 or £20. The M&S customer is the least price sensitive consumer in the grocery market - which is how come they've not bothered to launch a budget line, which even Waitrose has done, and they've not gone in for mass shrinkflation of products rather than simply jacking up the price of everything repeatedly. It seems unnecessarily parsimonious for a chain that's focussed on a clientele that has, within the boundaries of common sense, money to burn on its goodies and treats.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
If you hadn’t snipped my comment (a boring habit of yours) then the rest of my comment adds several caveats to that statement
Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
In his book "A Shepherd's Life" James Rebanks writes very movingly about the attachment to and love of land and why success should not just be measured by how easily people move away from a place where their families have been for generations and have have made. That chapter is one of the best things I have ever read - not just in how it is written but in what it says and what it has made me think about over the years, to me the mark of great writing.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).
Hence why Truss would have seen the Tories near wiped out had she remained leader, losing traditionally Conservative rural areas as well as swing seats in the suburbs and towns due to her budget disaster.
Truss was always more of an ideological laissez faire libertarian than a traditional conservative Tory
*sigh* I'll bite.
You really think Truss disclosing to Rory Stewart that she was cynical about the Rural Affairs part of her brief nearly 10 years ago has any bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of her hypothetical success there in the 2025 election? That's an argument so weak it doesn't even class as clutching a straw.
You need to forgive yourself for supporting Sunak. It seemed right to you at the time, as it did to many others. What counts now is looking forward, beyond him. Ideally, beyond him will come before the Tory wipeout.
Truss’ Australia trade deal was hardly focused on protecting British farmers’ interests first either.
Under Truss in her last weeks as PM polls showed the Tories heading for Canada 1993 style wipeout, now most polls and the local elections and Uxbridge by election show Sunak has at least got the Tories back to Major 1997 levels and closer with Starmer still as preferred PM
And as we have established, you have zero evidence that the very modest gains made by the Tories under Sunak wouldn't also have happened under Truss.
We know the final polls under Truss as PM had the Tories heading for 0 to 50 seats. Whereas now polls under Sunak at least show the Tories heading for 150+ seats.
We know too the Truss and Kwarteng budget added to inflation which Sunak and Hunt are cutting and also caused the surge in interest rates in recent months
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
If you hadn’t snipped my comment (a boring habit of yours) then the rest of my comment adds several caveats to that statement
While centrist swing voters may now vote for whichever of Labour or the LDs are closest to the Tories as they want a change of government I don’t think that is true for ideological left wingers.
After the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government they still don’t trust the Liberal Democrats and will therefore stick to voting Labour regardless or Green if they are Corbynistas who think Starmer too right wing
The Green vote is worth closer consideration. I know quite a few Greens who are keen on tactical voting and enthusiastically sign up to it with the LibDems (rather less enthusuastically with Labour). But the bulk of the party is very much No Compromise, as witnessed by Somerton (where their 10% could easily have deprived the LDs of victory if it hadn't been so overwhleming) and Uxbridge (where in principle it did deprive Labour of victory, though whether they'd have voted Labour without a Green candidate is debatable). Some of their voters are normal Tories who fancy a bit more greenery, many others are keen Corbynites. And of course a party with almost no realistic target seats can only with difficulty sign up to a pact, and arguably need to show the flag everywhere.
Bottom line: while LabLD unofficial cooperation is indeed flourishing as Mike suggests, LLG calculations are less soundly based, as the Green part can't be relied upon to transfer even in marginals.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
F1: still a gap to close (15/21) but Perez can be hedged for the win now, if you followed the 26 each way bet and want to hedge it.
Going to do a spot of reading and see what the odds do. Hamilton was fastest with verstappen a quarter of a second back but Perez just a hundredth off the Dutchman.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
While centrist swing voters may now vote for whichever of Labour or the LDs are closest to the Tories as they want a change of government I don’t think that is true for ideological left wingers.
After the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government they still don’t trust the Liberal Democrats and will therefore stick to voting Labour regardless or Green if they are Corbynistas who think Starmer too right wing
The evidence of the by-elections suggests that the Green vote may hold up quite well in a GE, but that most Labour voters are indeed prepared to back a Liberal Democrat if necessary. Hence the lost deposit in Somerset.
The hard left were able to scrape together the numbers to take over the Labour Party, but they're not a significant element of the wider electorate.
The Greens are likely to get about 5% though at the next general election based on polls and the by elections, up on where they were when Corbyn was Labour leader.
The one group Corbyn helped Labour with was Labour or Green swing voters
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
There are, unfortunately, lots more ominous weather portents than those
My bet is pretty much what it was after two months of the war. It will end with an exhausted Korean style armistice. And a divided Ukraine
A very hostile Cold War will then ensue. Russia will hold on to what its got - Donetsk, the Azov coast, Crimea - Ukraine will arm itself to the teeth interim. And it will probably kick off again down the line
That is actually one of the more medium-optimistic outcomes. There are worse
Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
In his book "A Shepherd's Life" James Rebanks writes very movingly about the attachment to and love of land and why success should not just be measured by how easily people move away from a place where their families have been for generations and have have made. That chapter is one of the best things I have ever read - not just in how it is written but in what it says and what it has made me think about over the years, to me the mark of great writing.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).
Hence why Truss would have seen the Tories near wiped out had she remained leader, losing traditionally Conservative rural areas as well as swing seats in the suburbs and towns due to her budget disaster.
Truss was always more of an ideological laissez faire libertarian than a traditional conservative Tory
*sigh* I'll bite.
You really think Truss disclosing to Rory Stewart that she was cynical about the Rural Affairs part of her brief nearly 10 years ago has any bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of her hypothetical success there in the 2025 election? That's an argument so weak it doesn't even class as clutching a straw.
You need to forgive yourself for supporting Sunak. It seemed right to you at the time, as it did to many others. What counts now is looking forward, beyond him. Ideally, beyond him will come before the Tory wipeout.
Truss is in a very large part why we are where we are and the market reaction to her idiotic few weeks demanded responsibility as per Sunak and is even influencing Starmer and Reeves today
No amount of hubris over Truss is going to conceal that both her time and Johnson have had a catastrophic consequence for the conservatives and resulted in Sunak
Her diagnosis of the schlerotic British economy was bang on. The pace of her solutions was far from ideal. It did however give the Tories the possibility of securing a feel good factor before 2024, and then a chance of winning the next election
Sunak is currently failing slowly. The worst sort of political declinism IMO. I suspect he'll realise this soon (Tory members already have, and are by and large not helping with campaigning, or donating, or going to social events, as far as I can see), and try and up the pace. But he'll run out of road.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
What's unclear is whether the asymmetric attrition of the current grind is sufficient to facilitate a Ukrainian breakthrough.
Blinken was quoted yesterday as saying there's zero sign that Russia is serious about peace talks, FWIW.
12.45pm There is a significant amount of rain on that outfield. The super-sopper is hard at work on the standing water. But fingers crossed.
Sam M: "Not that it matters as such but why on Earth haven't they taken an early lunch?" I guess there's no chance of play before 1.40pm, so no need to hassle the caterers. If it takes, say, 90 mins to two hours for the clean-up, I reckon we could be looking at a 2.30pm start? And probably a 4pm close to judge by my latest seaweed readings...
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
There are, unfortunately, lots more ominous weather portents than those
My bet is pretty much what it was after two months of the war. It will end with an exhausted Korean style armistice. And a divided Ukraine
A very hostile Cold War will then ensue. Russia will hold on to what its got - Donetsk, the Azov coast, Crimea - Ukraine will arm itself to the teeth interim. And it will probably kick off again down the line
That is actually one of the more medium-optimistic outcomes. There are worse
The difference is that, for one side in this war, it is existential to their survival as a nation, and they are still very much up for the fight.
The other side, not so much.
So long as there’s a steady supply of weapons heading towards Ukraine, there will be a steady supply of Ukranian soldiers happy to receive them.
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
Doesn’t the movie completely ignore the fact that Oppenheimer was a commie and someone leaked the nuke secrets to Stalin?
Not that this makes it necessarily a bad film. Quite an omission if true, tho (I have not seen it)
The whole fucking film is about Oppy being a Commie, and his wife, mistress, brother, sister in law, and all friends.
Except he wasn't. Plenty of friends and relatives who were, though.
The traitor who leaked from Los Alamos was a German Brit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs (Good scientist, though, who did some fundamental work in the project.)
I know. I meant the film explores how the powers that be considered Oppy to be a Commie.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
What's unclear is whether the asymmetric attrition of the current grind is sufficient to facilitate a Ukrainian breakthrough.
Blinken was quoted yesterday as saying there's zero sign that Russia is serious about peace talks, FWIW.
Asymmetric in what way? Do we even have reliable stats from either side?
Offensive war is usually much more costly than defensive. So we can presume Ukraine is chewing through men and materiel
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority would still be shitting in outhouses.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
Indeed. Apparently the "common sense" moral majority says down with this sort of thing. Except that they don't - people vote for LTNs etc.
Why might they do that? Because having nowhere to park and endless rat runners trying to run your kids over is crap. "Freedom" for the driver is prison for the resident...
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
There are, unfortunately, lots more ominous weather portents than those
My bet is pretty much what it was after two months of the war. It will end with an exhausted Korean style armistice. And a divided Ukraine
A very hostile Cold War will then ensue. Russia will hold on to what its got - Donetsk, the Azov coast, Crimea - Ukraine will arm itself to the teeth interim. And it will probably kick off again down the line
That is actually one of the more medium-optimistic outcomes. There are worse
The difference is that, for one side in this war, it is existential to their survival as a nation, and they are still very much up for the fight.
The other side, not so much.
So long as there’s a steady supply of weapons heading towards Ukraine, there will be a steady supply of Ukranian soldiers happy to receive them.
I’m not at all sure about the last statement
Ukraine prewar had a population of about 40m?
At least 5-10m (mainly women kids oldsters, but also some fighting age men) have fled
I imagine pretty much all if Ukraine that is of fighting age - and willing to fight - is now enlisted. Many are dead. Or injured. They do not have an inexhaustible supply of troops (nor does Russia, but Russia is 3 times bigger)
That said, after my encounter with the freelancing British soldier two nights ago I wonder how many foreigners are joining the Ukes. I doubt Russia gets many volunteers
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority would still be shitting in outhouses.
For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.
'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
There are, unfortunately, lots more ominous weather portents than those
My bet is pretty much what it was after two months of the war. It will end with an exhausted Korean style armistice. And a divided Ukraine
A very hostile Cold War will then ensue. Russia will hold on to what its got - Donetsk, the Azov coast, Crimea - Ukraine will arm itself to the teeth interim. And it will probably kick off again down the line
That is actually one of the more medium-optimistic outcomes. There are worse
The difference is that, for one side in this war, it is existential to their survival as a nation, and they are still very much up for the fight.
The other side, not so much.
So long as there’s a steady supply of weapons heading towards Ukraine, there will be a steady supply of Ukranian soldiers happy to receive them.
And sanctions too. Ordinary Russians need to understand that the cost of continuing the war is much greater than losing it. Is the will in the west there, however? There seems be a real fear in North America and western Europe of confronting Russia directly in spite of an enormous military advantage. Why should Russian cargo be fee to enter and exit the Black sea if Ukrainian cargo isn't?
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
What's unclear is whether the asymmetric attrition of the current grind is sufficient to facilitate a Ukrainian breakthrough.
Blinken was quoted yesterday as saying there's zero sign that Russia is serious about peace talks, FWIW.
Asymmetric in what way? Do we even have reliable stats from either side?
Offensive war is usually much more costly than defensive. So we can presume Ukraine is chewing through men and materiel
Since early June Ukraine haven't made many direct assaults. They've been using artillery very effectively to destroy Russian artillery so that when they next attempt a major assault, Russia doesn't have the artillery to defend against it. The Russian commander who was recently relieved of his command in Zaporizhzhia for complaining about the lack of counter-battery ability lends some credence to the view that the attrition is in Ukraine's favour at present.
Ukraine have also drawn Russia into a costly fight to defend Bakhmut, due to its political significance to Russia. Ukraine seem to be fighting in a very smart way to cause maximum damage to Russia while preserving their forces.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
What's unclear is whether the asymmetric attrition of the current grind is sufficient to facilitate a Ukrainian breakthrough.
Blinken was quoted yesterday as saying there's zero sign that Russia is serious about peace talks, FWIW.
Asymmetric in what way? Do we even have reliable stats from either side?
Offensive war is usually much more costly than defensive. So we can presume Ukraine is chewing through men and materiel
After the early offensive disasters, they changed tactics
Figures aren't precise, obviously, but documented losses seem still to be very much in Ukraine's favour. The difference between this and WWI is that both sides can see what they're firing at and hitting (though again, Ukraine is better equipped for that).
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
What's unclear is whether the asymmetric attrition of the current grind is sufficient to facilitate a Ukrainian breakthrough.
Blinken was quoted yesterday as saying there's zero sign that Russia is serious about peace talks, FWIW.
Asymmetric in what way? Do we even have reliable stats from either side?
Offensive war is usually much more costly than defensive. So we can presume Ukraine is chewing through men and materiel
Since early June Ukraine haven't made many direct assaults. They've been using artillery very effectively to destroy Russian artillery so that when they next attempt a major assault, Russia doesn't have the artillery to defend against it. The Russian commander who was recently relieved of his command in Zaporizhzhia for complaining about the lack of counter-battery ability lends some credence to the view that the attrition is in Ukraine's favour at present.
Ukraine have also drawn Russia into a costly fight to defend Bakhmut, due to its political significance to Russia. Ukraine seem to be fighting in a very smart way to cause maximum damage to Russia while preserving their forces.
For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.
'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'
Just need to bring back Jane Austen style Vicarages for Vicars rather than having old Rectories mostly now owned privately by bankers and lawyers
WRT the by elections, it's evident that Reform/Reclaim are of no interest to the voters, and that the Conservatives will pick up most of them.
The Conservatives were 5% up in Selby, on the constituency poll, and 12% up in Uxbridge.
Reform, Reclaim and any other similars will get negligible support GE. The right wing voters (what's left of them!) will vote CON as to vote for any other party is a complete waste of time.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
I refer the honourable gentlemen and ladies to the poll I posted earlier:
Overall, 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs in London, while only 17% are opposed to the idea.
While centrist swing voters may now vote for whichever of Labour or the LDs are closest to the Tories as they want a change of government I don’t think that is true for ideological left wingers.
After the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government they still don’t trust the Liberal Democrats and will therefore stick to voting Labour regardless or Green if they are Corbynistas who think Starmer too right wing
The evidence of the by-elections suggests that the Green vote may hold up quite well in a GE, but that most Labour voters are indeed prepared to back a Liberal Democrat if necessary. Hence the lost deposit in Somerset.
The hard left were able to scrape together the numbers to take over the Labour Party, but they're not a significant element of the wider electorate.
A key factor for Green performance at the General Election is that Caroline Lucas is standing down as an MP and the Greens have had serious difficulties in Brighton (losing badly in the one notably awful result amongst a lot of good results for them in the local elections). They desparately need to hold on to her seat, it won't be easy, and a lot of resource will go into that, with less available elsewhere, making them more vulnerable to squeeze than would otherwise be the case.
WRT the by elections, it's evident that Reform/Reclaim are of no interest to the voters, and that the Conservatives will pick up most of them.
The Conservatives were 5% up in Selby, on the constituency poll, and 12% up in Uxbridge.
Reform, Reclaim and any other similars will get negligible support GE. The right wing voters (what's left of them!) will vote CON as to vote for any other party is a complete waste of time.
It turns out that Laurence Fox is simply not The Leader that the British People are yearning for.
On Oppenheimer, the development of the atom bomb and spying, the following anecdote amuses me:
"One of the two missions, Yatskov recalls, almost ended in disaster. After picking up the intelligence material, which was stuffed in the bottom of a box of tissues, Lona Cohen was startled to find plainclothes policemen checking the bags of passengers boarding the Chicago-bound train at the Albuquerque station. She decided to board the train at the last moment. She asked the plainclothes man to hold the box for her while she searched for a ticket and ID. After searching her bags, the agent handed back the box."
For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.
'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'
Just need to bring back Jane Austen style Vicarages for Vicars rather than having old Rectories mostly now owned privately by bankers and lawyers
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
That’s a huge issue for places like car racing circuits and local airfields, where recent arrivals seem to be unaware that racing cars and small planes can be noisy.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
I refer the honourable gentlemen and ladies to the poll I posted earlier:
Overall, 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs in London, while only 17% are opposed to the idea.
If Nato isn't prepared, in spite of its enormous naval supremacy in the region, to stand up to Russia in and around the Black sea, what message does that send to China over Taiwan?
On the other hand, (most of) Taiwan is across a significant stretch of the Pacific Ocean, defended by a well armed adversory. Said adversory has a modern air force with latest gen F16s and Dassault fighters. As well as a growing fleet of submarines.
So why is the US so obsessive about not being outmanned in terms of ships etc vs China. I just cannot understand the contrast between the US willingness to confront China in the pacific with its feeble approach to confronting Russia in Ukraine.
Good point about the F-16s. So the US is happy to give them to a non-UN recognised state but not happy to give them to Ukraine thus far.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
I refer the honourable gentlemen and ladies to the poll I posted earlier:
Overall, 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs in London, while only 17% are opposed to the idea.
It is probably similar to those who are in favour of higher taxes, so long as it affects other people.
Everyone’s in favour of stopping their street being used as a rat run, but don’t like it when their own five-minute journey now takes 20 minutes, or when ambulances start getting lost.
While centrist swing voters may now vote for whichever of Labour or the LDs are closest to the Tories as they want a change of government I don’t think that is true for ideological left wingers.
After the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government they still don’t trust the Liberal Democrats and will therefore stick to voting Labour regardless or Green if they are Corbynistas who think Starmer too right wing
Good Afternoon everyone. Bit late posting today. I’m ex-Lib, not an enthusiastic LibDem; before that I was Labour, and I wasn’t keen on the Coalition. So I’m tempted, or would be if I was less repelled by the Tories, to vote Green.
Before you are tempted to vote Green, check their performance in the Scottish Parliament.
While centrist swing voters may now vote for whichever of Labour or the LDs are closest to the Tories as they want a change of government I don’t think that is true for ideological left wingers.
After the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government they still don’t trust the Liberal Democrats and will therefore stick to voting Labour regardless or Green if they are Corbynistas who think Starmer too right wing
The Green vote is worth closer consideration. I know quite a few Greens who are keen on tactical voting and enthusiastically sign up to it with the LibDems (rather less enthusuastically with Labour). But the bulk of the party is very much No Compromise, as witnessed by Somerton (where their 10% could easily have deprived the LDs of victory if it hadn't been so overwhleming) and Uxbridge (where in principle it did deprive Labour of victory, though whether they'd have voted Labour without a Green candidate is debatable). Some of their voters are normal Tories who fancy a bit more greenery, many others are keen Corbynites. And of course a party with almost no realistic target seats can only with difficulty sign up to a pact, and arguably need to show the flag everywhere.
Bottom line: while LabLD unofficial cooperation is indeed flourishing as Mike suggests, LLG calculations are less soundly based, as the Green part can't be relied upon to transfer even in marginals.
Greens are not quite LDs with an extra fondness for knitting muesli at home from organic meadow flowers. Only recently have they abandoned opposition to NATO, they remain opposed to the UK independent deterrent, and I doubt if they are reliable on defence generally, and support rejoining that rather ungreen capitalist bankers cartel conspiracy called the EU.
They are all over the place, and don't fit any other party well.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
I refer the honourable gentlemen and ladies to the poll I posted earlier:
Overall, 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs in London, while only 17% are opposed to the idea.
For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.
'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'
Just need to bring back Jane Austen style Vicarages for Vicars rather than having old Rectories mostly now owned privately by bankers and lawyers
Try heating The Old Rectory on a C of E stipend
The reason why there are so many very large old rectories is largely, I believe, because vicars very often used to be the sons of the gentry. They could afford the lifestyle that went with a big grand house, and I think (though not certain) that often the families paid for their construction.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
That’s a huge issue for places like car racing circuits and small airports, where recent arrivals seem to be unaware that racing cars and small planes are noisy.
It's a vast problem everywhere. The place I live is essentially a new town; nothing aside from a couple of farms existed here before construction started in 1997. Now it has around 12000 people and 4250 homes.
*Some* (not all) residents are vehemently against the expansion of the village to West Cambourne (underway), to the Bourn Airfield site, and potentially to the north of the A428. They get apoplectic that the authorities have the temerity to grow the town.
I see it differently: Cambourne has enabled over 4,000 families to live, and potentially buy homes, this near Cambridge. In at least one case I know, the 'locals' complaining about the expansion could not have afforded to buy a house in the area if there had not been for this expansion. It's been good for people and good for Cambridge and the area.
That does not mean you need to be 'for' all developments - I think the council's plan to squeeze dense housing onto a green area set aside for business is wrong-headed - not because it is housing, but because that land should best be used for commerce and business, and we are very short of the former. But I am not against the wider new developments as long as we get a similar increase in service provision (yes, I know...)
Thank god we're back to the serious stuff not whether Oppenheimer was a communist. (just joking)
NPXMP's response is odd I must say. Actually it's rather important. Communist sympathisers leaked the nuclear secrets to the repugnant Joe Stalin for which they should not be forgiven. However there is no evidence that Oppenheimer was involved so far as I know. He just felt conflicted about the 'awesome' force he had unleashed on to the world which is fair enough.
I'm seeing the film later but not sure I'll like it as I didn't care for Dunkirk. We'll see
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
I refer the honourable gentlemen and ladies to the poll I posted earlier:
Overall, 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs in London, while only 17% are opposed to the idea.
It is probably similar to those who are in favour of higher taxes, so long as it affects other people.
Everyone’s in favour of stopping their street being used as a rat run, but don’t like it when their own five-minute journey now takes 20 minutes, or when ambulances start getting lost.
People like living accessibly near a motorway but not close; ditto airports.
Many issues are becoming a fascinating battle between individual/local convenience and amenity, and the national need.
We are in for a fascinating and uninformative GE campaign in which all compete to offer solutions X, Y and Z on a national scale, while exempting each individual constituency from its effects. If Sir K didn't know that on Wednesday, he knows it now.
WRT the by elections, it's evident that Reform/Reclaim are of no interest to the voters, and that the Conservatives will pick up most of them.
The Conservatives were 5% up in Selby, on the constituency poll, and 12% up in Uxbridge.
Reform, Reclaim and any other similars will get negligible support GE. The right wing voters (what's left of them!) will vote CON as to vote for any other party is a complete waste of time.
It turns out that Laurence Fox is simply not The Leader that the British People are yearning for.
And the British People are not the British People that Laurence Fox is yearning for.
ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.
It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.
Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.
Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...
That's far from certain.
None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.
There are, unfortunately, lots more ominous weather portents than those
My bet is pretty much what it was after two months of the war. It will end with an exhausted Korean style armistice. And a divided Ukraine
A very hostile Cold War will then ensue. Russia will hold on to what its got - Donetsk, the Azov coast, Crimea - Ukraine will arm itself to the teeth interim. And it will probably kick off again down the line
That is actually one of the more medium-optimistic outcomes. There are worse
The difference is that, for one side in this war, it is existential to their survival as a nation, and they are still very much up for the fight.
The other side, not so much.
So long as there’s a steady supply of weapons heading towards Ukraine, there will be a steady supply of Ukranian soldiers happy to receive them.
I’m not at all sure about the last statement
Ukraine prewar had a population of about 40m?
At least 5-10m (mainly women kids oldsters, but also some fighting age men) have fled
I imagine pretty much all if Ukraine that is of fighting age - and willing to fight - is now enlisted. Many are dead. Or injured. They do not have an inexhaustible supply of troops (nor does Russia, but Russia is 3 times bigger)
That said, after my encounter with the freelancing British soldier two nights ago I wonder how many foreigners are joining the Ukes. I doubt Russia gets many volunteers
They still have an awful lot of young men - and women* - willing to sign up and help fight the orcs.
Very few men have fled Ukraine, in sharp contrast to Russia, where anyone with the means to get out has done so already, millions of them.
*yes, there are women in the armed services. Not on the front lines, but in the back office functions.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
Indeed. Apparently the "common sense" moral majority says down with this sort of thing. Except that they don't - people vote for LTNs etc.
Why might they do that? Because having nowhere to park and endless rat runners trying to run your kids over is crap. "Freedom" for the driver is prison for the resident...
Our road has almost zero traffic for which we are very grateful but a road nearby despite being a narrow residential Street is classed as a B Road and is always crazy busy. The sense of entitlement of the people who are, after all, driving down someone else's street is a sight to behold. The other day I stopped for about twenty seconds to drop off someone who lives there (and who had a broken arm) and was immediately met with someone honking their horn from behind. Really extraordinary.
For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.
'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'
There is a line in the headline, telling you all you need to know about how much the Guardian understands the world outside its narrow domain:
"With homes almost beyond reach for all but the luckiest..."
In much of ordinary, unfashionable, ignored, hard working England this is 'the lie direct'. I live in such a place.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!
They are often noisy because they are hard of herring.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!
Growing up by the coast I like the sound of seagulls and can sleep through it quite easily.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.
I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.
This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.
Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.
I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.
AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.
The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.
When their liberties are taken away, of course.
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs. By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.
Church bells are lovely.
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!
They are often noisy because they are hard of herring.
Comments
No amount of hubris over Truss is going to conceal that both her time and Johnson have had a catastrophic consequence for the conservatives and resulted in Sunak
China however is now firmly the main superpower rival to the US, not Russia/USSR as last century, so the West needs the US to lead on containing China
I’m ex-Lib, not an enthusiastic LibDem; before that I was Labour, and I wasn’t keen on the Coalition.
So I’m tempted, or would be if I was less repelled by the Tories, to vote Green.
The hard left were able to scrape together the numbers to take over the Labour Party, but they're not a significant element of the wider electorate.
Under Truss in her last weeks as PM polls showed the Tories heading for Canada 1993 style wipeout, now most polls and the local elections and Uxbridge by election show Sunak has at least got the Tories back to Major 1997 levels and closer with Starmer still as preferred PM
'Fellow traveller', certainly. Though that is in the context of pre-war America, of course.
Too much of an intellectual omnivore to believe in communist ideology, I think.
(Which is also what stopped his belonging to the very top rank of physicists, despite his great intellect.)
Everything else is pretty secondary
The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire
The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow
So then it becomes a question of how long Putin can stay in power and how long the west will support kyiv without question, and whether some of Putin’s madder gambles (closing the Black Sea) swing world opinion for or against
And all the while, China waits to pounce on Taiwan
The movie is being denounced from several sides for not telling the REAL story - hence my confusion
We know too the Truss and Kwarteng budget added to inflation which Sunak and Hunt are cutting and also caused the surge in interest rates in recent months
Bottom line: while LabLD unofficial cooperation is indeed flourishing as Mike suggests, LLG calculations are less soundly based, as the Green part can't be relied upon to transfer even in marginals.
Going to do a spot of reading and see what the odds do. Hamilton was fastest with verstappen a quarter of a second back but Perez just a hundredth off the Dutchman.
Tens of Thousands of Dead Fish Wash Ashore on Gulf Coast in Texas
A “perfect storm” of bad conditions, including high temperatures, starved the fish of oxygen, officials said
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/dead-fish-texas-climate-change.html
This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.
The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.
The one group Corbyn helped Labour with was Labour or Green swing voters
However, s/he was possibly the only Russian with lots of arms left?
My bet is pretty much what it was after two months of the war. It will end with an exhausted Korean style armistice. And a divided Ukraine
A very hostile Cold War will then ensue. Russia will hold on to what its got - Donetsk, the Azov coast, Crimea - Ukraine will arm itself to the teeth interim. And it will probably kick off again down the line
That is actually one of the more medium-optimistic outcomes. There are worse
Sunak is currently failing slowly. The worst sort of political declinism IMO. I suspect he'll realise this soon (Tory members already have, and are by and large not helping with campaigning, or donating, or going to social events, as far as I can see), and try and up the pace. But he'll run out of road.
Blinken was quoted yesterday as saying there's zero sign that Russia is serious about peace talks, FWIW.
12.45pm There is a significant amount of rain on that outfield. The super-sopper is hard at work on the standing water. But fingers crossed.
Sam M: "Not that it matters as such but why on Earth haven't they taken an early lunch?" I guess there's no chance of play before 1.40pm, so no need to hassle the caterers. If it takes, say, 90 mins to two hours for the clean-up, I reckon we could be looking at a 2.30pm start? And probably a 4pm close to judge by my latest seaweed readings...
The other side, not so much.
So long as there’s a steady supply of weapons heading towards Ukraine, there will be a steady supply of Ukranian soldiers happy to receive them.
Offensive war is usually much more costly than defensive. So we can presume Ukraine is chewing through men and materiel
Why might they do that? Because having nowhere to park and endless rat runners trying to run your kids over is crap. "Freedom" for the driver is prison for the resident...
One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.
Ukraine prewar had a population of about 40m?
At least 5-10m (mainly women kids oldsters, but also some fighting age men) have fled
I imagine pretty much all if Ukraine that is of fighting age - and willing to fight - is now enlisted. Many are dead. Or injured. They do not have an inexhaustible supply of troops (nor does Russia, but Russia is 3 times bigger)
That said, after my encounter with the freelancing British soldier two nights ago I wonder how many foreigners are joining the Ukes. I doubt Russia gets many volunteers
For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.
'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'
The Conservatives were 5% up in Selby, on the constituency poll, and 12% up in Uxbridge.
Ukraine have also drawn Russia into a costly fight to defend Bakhmut, due to its political significance to Russia. Ukraine seem to be fighting in a very smart way to cause maximum damage to Russia while preserving their forces.
Figures aren't precise, obviously, but documented losses seem still to be very much in Ukraine's favour.
The difference between this and WWI is that both sides can see what they're firing at and hitting (though again, Ukraine is better equipped for that).
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.
Overall, 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs in London, while only 17% are opposed to the idea.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/
"One of the two missions, Yatskov recalls, almost ended in disaster. After picking up the intelligence material, which was stuffed in the bottom of a box of tissues, Lona Cohen was startled to find plainclothes policemen checking the bags of passengers boarding the Chicago-bound train at the Albuquerque station. She decided to board the train at the last moment. She asked the plainclothes man to hold the box for her while she searched for a ticket and ID. After searching her bags, the agent handed back the box."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/10/04/how-soviets-stole-us-atom-secrets/1ebc1feb-7d1d-476b-8f85-d9ea08a60fa9/
I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.
Good point about the F-16s. So the US is happy to give them to a non-UN recognised state but not happy to give them to Ukraine thus far.
They are all over the place, and don't fit any other party well.
*Some* (not all) residents are vehemently against the expansion of the village to West Cambourne (underway), to the Bourn Airfield site, and potentially to the north of the A428. They get apoplectic that the authorities have the temerity to grow the town.
I see it differently: Cambourne has enabled over 4,000 families to live, and potentially buy homes, this near Cambridge. In at least one case I know, the 'locals' complaining about the expansion could not have afforded to buy a house in the area if there had not been for this expansion. It's been good for people and good for Cambridge and the area.
That does not mean you need to be 'for' all developments - I think the council's plan to squeeze dense housing onto a green area set aside for business is wrong-headed - not because it is housing, but because that land should best be used for commerce and business, and we are very short of the former. But I am not against the wider new developments as long as we get a similar increase in service provision (yes, I know...)
Get. On. With. The. Game.
NPXMP's response is odd I must say. Actually it's rather important. Communist sympathisers leaked the nuclear secrets to the repugnant Joe Stalin for which they should not be forgiven. However there is no evidence that Oppenheimer was involved so far as I know. He just felt conflicted about the 'awesome' force he had unleashed on to the world which is fair enough.
I'm seeing the film later but not sure I'll like it as I didn't care for Dunkirk. We'll see
Many issues are becoming a fascinating battle between individual/local convenience and amenity, and the national need.
We are in for a fascinating and uninformative GE campaign in which all compete to offer solutions X, Y and Z on a national scale, while exempting each individual constituency from its effects. If Sir K didn't know that on Wednesday, he knows it now.
Radar beats forecast every time,
Actual weather vs predicted weather.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66277032
Very few men have fled Ukraine, in sharp contrast to Russia, where anyone with the means to get out has done so already, millions of them.
*yes, there are women in the armed services. Not on the front lines, but in the back office functions.
"With homes almost beyond reach for all but the luckiest..."
In much of ordinary, unfashionable, ignored, hard working England this is 'the lie direct'. I live in such a place.