politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Has Sunak been too influenced by Uxbridge? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,155
edited August 2023 in General
imageHas Sunak been too influenced by Uxbridge? – politicalbetting.com

Of the three by-elections that the Tories were defending last Thursday Uxbridge seemed to be the most challenging for the Tories. Yet the party ended up with a very narrow hold after a very skilled campaign linked to the planned extension of ULEZ in the outer London boroughs.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,161
    First.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    Second.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,125
    tlg86 said:

    First.

    Any thoughts on castles ;) ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    edited August 2023
    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    We have a sighting of that rare beast, a QTWTAIY.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    edited August 2023
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    First.

    Any thoughts on castles ;) ?
    Well, you want castles, you want grim, in the middle of **** all except sheep shite, this will do very nicely.

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g186505-d216448-Reviews-Hermitage_Castle-Hawick_Scottish_Borders_Scotland.html
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,161
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    First.

    Any thoughts on castles ;) ?
    Boza for me:

    https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/bolsover-castle/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,341
    Yes.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Politically sensible, environmentally disastrous.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    CorrectHorseBat said:

    Politically sensible, environmentally disastrous.

    Quite. So much for being "conservative".
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    People love environmentalism until they have to pay for it. And so we are doomed.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,803
    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    I think Uxbridge is a relatively inelastic constituency, where demographic change favours Wishi Washi. That probably swung it at least as much as Ulez.

    Declaring war on the environment is either heroic or idiotic under the current circumstances. I tend to see it as the latter.

    I’m in Boston, a city much enhanced by the Rose Kennedy Greenway. I dare say Wishi would have it concreted over.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,999
    Possibly. Clutching for an answer, it almost but not quite makes sense for him.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy

    'Environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people will mobilise their members if UK ministers water down climate commitments, they have warned.

    Groups including the RSPB, National Trust and the RSPCA have written to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has signalled his willingness to back away from green policies should the Conservatives stand to benefit from it electorally.

    “We will not stand by whilst politicians use the environment as a political football. It is courage and leadership that we need now,” they said.

    “In the past, we have mobilised many of our members collectively with extraordinary results, and our resolve to stand firm now against any and all attacks on this critical policy agenda remains absolute.”'

    Hardly Just Stop Oil. And that was before the latest news.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    Yes. But Starmer appears to be more affected. You have to be willing to defend your policies as they are, even if you might personally think you would have chosen differently.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,341
    CorrectHorseBat said:

    Politically sensible, environmentally disastrous.

    It could actually prove to be precisely the other way round.

    I think Sunak has been desperate to find a winning dividing line. He's sensed one here, because.. Uxbridge, and has turned it up to 11 heedless of mood music to the extent it drowns out everything else.

    It risks looking desperate and delusional. A more cautious and measured approach would have been far better, even if I do agree with him that North Sea oil & gas does need to have a future for the next few decades.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,517
    It's notable how many non-western countries still have western-sounding national anthems.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    First.

    Any thoughts on castles ;) ?
    Boza for me:

    https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/bolsover-castle/
    Went there a few years ago. Was "ok". Many that are more impressive in my view.

    Having said that, I love discussions like this on PB. I have started compiling on Google Maps a list of "Want to go" places where many of the suggestions have been added. Thank you to everyone for their contributions.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Depends on the lesson the Tories draw - if it’s “scrap green nonsense” they’ll be wrong. If it’s “listen to people and don’t impose “one size fits all” solutions, they’d be right.

    This is Hillingdon Council’s response to the ULEZ proposal:

    https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/9963/Hillingdon-Councils-response-to-Mayors-ULEZ-proposals/pdf/c320220728_London_Borough_of_Hillingdon_ULEZ_Response_FINAL_28-07-2022_7n6qth044uks.pdf

    TLDR:

    - Hillingdon is more spread out
    - Has greater car ownership
    - Poorer public transport
    - Lower levels of pollution.

    Why is a “Central London” solution being imposed on outer London?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,940
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    I believe ULEZ as enacted in Scotland isn’t a money making scheme per se, people with the wrong kind of oil burner are fined with the fine going up exponentially for repeat offenders. At least this is a discouragement of the use of such vehicles rather than charging people if they want to carry on using them.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    edited August 2023
    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy

    'Environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people will mobilise their members if UK ministers water down climate commitments, they have warned.

    Groups including the RSPB, National Trust and the RSPCA have written to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has signalled his willingness to back away from green policies should the Conservatives stand to benefit from it electorally.

    “We will not stand by whilst politicians use the environment as a political football. It is courage and leadership that we need now,” they said.

    “In the past, we have mobilised many of our members collectively with extraordinary results, and our resolve to stand firm now against any and all attacks on this critical policy agenda remains absolute.”'

    Hardly Just Stop Oil. And that was before the latest news.
    All the organisations you name have had middling to large scandals in their recent history but it just goes to show that a good name gives you a lot of oomph to talk bollocks.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Has drowning man been too influenced by sighting of straw?

    I am going with a resounding No here. The question isn't whether anti-Ulezism is crap (it is) but whether it is less crap than the hope of succeeding on the Five Pledges, or making an IHT-based comeback in the polls (it is). It rams the spikes on the fence further up SKS. People like and want their cars. This is good politics.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,117
    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    Once again.

    1) the goal is the reduction of pollution
    2) the current ULEZ scheme is *one way* of doing this.
    3) opposing 2) doesn’t mean you oppose 1)

    Some people seem to saying that “We must do flat rate ULEZ to fuck those caught out, because fucking those people over proves our virtue.”
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    The answer is yes.

    Having said that, London is a bugger to get about now, traffic wise. Much worse than New York. Have I read that its traffic is the slowest moving in the Western world or something?

    I blame TfL, and Khan, who is totally useless.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    TOPPING is quite, quite mental.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy

    'Environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people will mobilise their members if UK ministers water down climate commitments, they have warned.

    Groups including the RSPB, National Trust and the RSPCA have written to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has signalled his willingness to back away from green policies should the Conservatives stand to benefit from it electorally.

    “We will not stand by whilst politicians use the environment as a political football. It is courage and leadership that we need now,” they said.

    “In the past, we have mobilised many of our members collectively with extraordinary results, and our resolve to stand firm now against any and all attacks on this critical policy agenda remains absolute.”'

    Hardly Just Stop Oil. And that was before the latest news.
    All the organisations you name have had middling to large scandals in their recent history but it just goes to show that a good name gives you a lot of oomph to talk bollocks.
    I didn't mention the Conservative Party or HMG, though. And just because the NT upset some folk over labelling such things as a statue commissioned to express hatred of slavery and displayed where it is now by the original owner of the house, doesn't mean they are wrong on this issue.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,986
    I think Uxbridge was the catalyst that sparked a whole new narrative not only about the ULEZ scheme but the rush to green policies that many cannot afford and especially with the cost of living crisis

    Evs are not affordable for millions, heat pumps are not only unaffordable but in many cases not practical, requiring properties to have a 'c' efficiency rating to be sold is also unaffordable for many, and our 2030 ban on ICE cars is silly when the EU is 2035

    I have no idea whether Sunak will benefit from his obvious move to differentiate from Labour, but there are 35 million motorists in the UK who are an important group politicially and indeed the Sun is taking up their cause judging by today's front page
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Monksfield said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    I think Uxbridge is a relatively inelastic constituency, where demographic change favours Wishi Washi. That probably swung it at least as much as Ulez.

    Declaring war on the environment is either heroic or idiotic under the current circumstances. I tend to see it as the latter.

    I’m in Boston, a city much enhanced by the Rose Kennedy Greenway. I dare say Wishi would have it concreted over.
    Boston is quite an ugly and charmless city.
    It has already been concreted over.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,341
    Gardenwalker said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    TOPPING is quite, quite mental.
    Topping is alright, actually.

    He's a loyal Conservative, who hits the streets to campaign regardless of who's PM or the state of the national party, but adopts an alter ego here as a devil's advocate - deliberately - to test his own side's way of thinking, and occasionally troll the other.

    JackW used to do similar.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,544
    QTWTAIN.

    The vast majority of people are car-based. Which is heavily distorted by policymakers and media being based in London, where most commutes are by train.




    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-statistics-great-britain-2022/transport-statistics-great-britain-2022-domestic-travel

    Angela Rayner gave the game away on TV last week, saying that this is not just a London issue, and similar schemes are "coming to towns and cities across the whole of the UK."
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=fr3pRBjvIuo

    The implementation of the ULEZ expansion has been massively regressive, with the middle-classes driving having complaint cars, and those in the 2nd and 3rd quintiles by income most likely to have non-compliant cars they both rely on but can’t afford to replace. There’s also a feeling that this is the thin end of the wedge, with the scheme quickly expanded to many more vehicles.

    There’s also the boiling issue of cloned number plates, where people who have never been near London are having to defend themselves in court. Everyone should make sure that a photo of their car is unique, when compared to an adversary with a photo of a car of the same year and colour as yours, and with the same number plate. Government need to sort this out, possibly by moving to the system of stepped plates as used in the US, Germany and many other states.

    Lastly, if there are going to be dozens of these schemes, then there needs to be a UK-centralised system of payments, rather than dozens of individual operators trying to trick people into getting fined. You should get a bill monthly, paid by DD as with other utilities.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,645
    "the poll found Mr. Biden in a neck-and-neck race with former President Donald J. Trump, who held a commanding lead among likely Republican primary voters even as he faces two criminal indictments and more potential charges on the horizon. Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump were tied at 43 percent apiece in a hypothetical rematch in 2024, according to the poll."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/politics/biden-trump-poll.html
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
    But plenty don't. I used to live in one, set up in the 1980s. Worked just fine.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.
    I get your angle but LTNs pre-dated Covid. Cars are also a supremely convenient mode of transport for any number of reasons and people don't want to pay extra because they own one is the big takeaway.

    I think Rishi could be on to something. Not for everyone, but a non-trivial number nevertheless.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,277
    CarlottaVance said:

    Depends on the lesson the Tories draw - if it’s “scrap green nonsense” they’ll be wrong. If it’s “listen to people and don’t impose “one size fits all” solutions, they’d be right.

    This is Hillingdon Council’s response to the ULEZ proposal:

    https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/9963/Hillingdon-Councils-response-to-Mayors-ULEZ-proposals/pdf/c320220728_London_Borough_of_Hillingdon_ULEZ_Response_FINAL_28-07-2022_7n6qth044uks.pdf

    TLDR:

    - Hillingdon is more spread out
    - Has greater car ownership
    - Poorer public transport
    - Lower levels of pollution.

    Why is a “Central London” solution being imposed on outer London?

    It was clearly another Boris Johnson political masterstroke to come up with this plan & then get a Labour mayor to actually implement it.

    (A prerequisite for this to be true requires that the intention was always to extend the ULEZ to outer London eventually - does anyone know if this was the case?)
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    On topic: QTWTAIY. It also has the weird effect of the Tories looking like they're campaigning from opposition, despite 13 years in government.

    James Carville's campaigning maxim is evergreen.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think Uxbridge was the catalyst that sparked a whole new narrative not only about the ULEZ scheme but the rush to green policies that many cannot afford and especially with the cost of living crisis

    Evs are not affordable for millions, heat pumps are not only unaffordable but in many cases not practical, requiring properties to have a 'c' efficiency rating to be sold is also unaffordable for many, and our 2030 ban on ICE cars is silly when the EU is 2035

    I have no idea whether Sunak will benefit from his obvious move to differentiate from Labour, but there are 35 million motorists in the UK who are an important group politicially and indeed the Sun is taking up their cause judging by today's front page

    Another one with “heat pump denialism”.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,277
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.
    I get your angle but LTNs pre-dated Covid. Cars are also a supremely convenient mode of transport for any number of reasons and people don't want to pay extra because they own one is the big takeaway.

    I think Rishi could be on to something. Not for everyone, but a non-trivial number nevertheless.
    Mondeo man rises once more!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,986
    England 1 up v China after 4 minutes
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    " The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous."

    No it isn't. Peoples' greenery dies 100% where their self interest begins.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,566
    edited August 2023
    I expect Rishi’s chopper will undo any political benefits of this policy.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,517
    England score against China after 4 mins.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    kyf_100 said:

    Alas, I think Sunak has at last hit on something he can use here.

    I think in a cost of living crisis, green policies feel like a luxury to many.

    The fear of having your old petrol car taxed off the roads and having to fork out for a new electric one (especially if you live in a flat, and have no ability to charge it yourself) is a worry for many. The thought of your boiler packing in next week and going, hmm, do I have to fork out 5k for a gas boiler now when they may switch the gas off in 10 years, or invest 11k in a heat pump that everyone says won't even heat my house properly? The thought that even if your car is ULEZ compatible now, how long until mission creep increases the environmental standards further and further so your five year old ICE car is suddenly obsolete and worthless?

    Green policies hit the pocket. There are very few green initiatives you can think of that mean paying *less* money, simply because the way they work is they are designed to increase the cost of things to cover negative externalities. And while many people understand the need to transition to a low-carbon economy, there will be a lot of voters thinking that in a cost of living crisis, this is something that they can ill afford.

    And for many people, the little things just grate. For example, a friend of mine is infuriated by paper straws, which always get soggy and useless half way through his drink. I've told him he can always drink without a straw like a grown up, but for some people, these little things matter. It's the same with heat pumps. The idea that the green alternative is in some way *worse* than what you had before. I think it was Malmesbury the other day who said, you only need 10 policies that really piss 5% of the population off, before you have pissed off 50% of the population.

    Sunak is never going to win over the inner cities or the greenies, but car-driving, middle-income, Middle England, increasingly worried about the cost of living, will find his message resonates.

    The "green policies hit the pocket" position is only because those are the policies this government are willing to enact. We could do things to reduce prices that are green - like instead of matching prices of electricity to the cost of coal as an "incentive" to investors (to give them more profit from investing in green energy) we could instead allow green energy providers to reduce their unit cost, attracting more customers and thus still increasing profit for investment whilst disincentivising investment in the worst polluting methods (and benefiting customers). The same can be done with investing more in public transport infrastructure - countries across Europe are making public transport cheaper and better because the running cost of the infrastructure is made up by the increased economic growth from workers being able to travel easier (indeed, many areas are trialling free public transport for this very reason). The economic boon of the Tube is almost certainly outweighs its actual running costs - and yet it still has to run as a balanced budget entity rather than accepting that it creates private wealth which, as capitalists love to argue, is supposed to benefit everyone.

    If the only policies enacted are punitive policies aimed at individuals and not big system change or aimed at the actual significant pollutants - of course people will hate them. It's almost like doing bad policies produces negative views of those policies.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
    But plenty don't. I used to live in one, set up in the 1980s. Worked just fine.
    Plenty of people used to wear ginormous shoulder pads in the 1980s I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that.

    Google "LTN Fines" and fill your (and the councils') boots.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,807
    Yes and no.

    No because there is mileage in opposing a number of these policies. For all we may think that going “green” is morally positive, and responsible, and will have benefits in the long run, there are a number of serious, serious issues with the current approach:

    1. Changes being made without (perceived) public consent/support.

    2. Deadlines for phasing out of certain things on which people currently rely without any real integrated solution yet in place for what will replace them (and how it will be paid for).

    3. Perception that the changes do not simply make people’s lives “different”, but more inconvenient and costly.

    This will be a very serious political issue as we approach the end of the decade.

    Yes, because a) while I think there is dissatisfaction brewing right now, I’m not sure it’s a top political issue - yet. And also - who has been in power for the past 13 years and presided over this state of affairs? It all looks a bit disingenuous.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,649
    What is "a motorist", as opposed to someone who drives a car? Sunak and the Tories need to think about that very carefully, IMO.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Gardenwalker said:

    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.

    So that's a full 325 people in NZ who benefit from heat pumps. Yay.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy

    'Environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people will mobilise their members if UK ministers water down climate commitments, they have warned.

    Groups including the RSPB, National Trust and the RSPCA have written to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has signalled his willingness to back away from green policies should the Conservatives stand to benefit from it electorally.

    “We will not stand by whilst politicians use the environment as a political football. It is courage and leadership that we need now,” they said.

    “In the past, we have mobilised many of our members collectively with extraordinary results, and our resolve to stand firm now against any and all attacks on this critical policy agenda remains absolute.”'

    Hardly Just Stop Oil. And that was before the latest news.
    All the organisations you name have had middling to large scandals in their recent history but it just goes to show that a good name gives you a lot of oomph to talk bollocks.
    What was the National Trust's middling to large scandal? The legacy-of-colonialism stuff?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I expect Rishi’s chopper will undo any political benefits of this policy.

    He claims to need a chopper because he is working so hard for this country but he flew to Scotland merely to announce a policy to “own the libs”.

    Between that and his absurd tailoring - now a popular meme on X/Twitter - he is an embarassment.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Miklosvar said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    " The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous."

    No it isn't. Peoples' greenery dies 100% where their self interest begins.
    People have a self interest in a liveable environment, even if just from the aesthetic position that most people like looking at trees and fields over smog and motorways.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 640
    edited August 2023
    Yes. But there is a small demographic in Outer London (and I am one) who is disadvantaged by ULEZ being implemented in a hurry.

    All it needed was a longer run in to give people time to switch, and/or a tapered charge.

    For journeys inside Greater London I rarely use my car (usually only to carry bulky things) and within the North Circular, never,

    But the problem is that most of my car journeys are to a destination outside Greater London. For example my daughter lives with my ex in Brentwood. There is a frequent TFL bus to Brentwood, but it stops just over a mile from where they live. There is another bus to their estate but it is both infrequent and expensive. The Elizabeth Line station is almost a further mile away. So in practice you have to allow 55 minutes for the 7 mile journey between my house and hers. I can do the round trip in my car in that time. Or to the Country Park nearby it is a mile and a half walk from the nearest bus stop.

    So the other thing needed is TFL levels of public transport between Greater London and the next town outside, and within and between them.

    But Sunak is not proposing this, so it will do him no good, because essentially the ULEZ is popular with the 90% of people who don't own an old diesel.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    Tories prefer those green schemes which involve giving loads of money to spivs for fast cars and private jets, per Thurrock.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Gardenwalker said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    TOPPING is quite, quite mental.
    I mean same with you - google "LTN Fines".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,544
    edited August 2023
    numbertwelve said:

    Yes and no.

    No because there is mileage in opposing a number of these policies. For all we may think that going “green” is morally positive, and responsible, and will have benefits in the long run, there are a number of serious, serious issues with the current approach:

    1. Changes being made without (perceived) public consent/support.

    2. Deadlines for phasing out of certain things on which people currently rely without any real integrated solution yet in place for what will replace them (and how it will be paid for).

    3. Perception that the changes do not simply make people’s lives “different”, but more inconvenient and costly.

    This will be a very serious political issue as we approach the end of the decade.

    Yes, because a) while I think there is dissatisfaction brewing right now, I’m not sure it’s a top political issue - yet. And also - who has been in power for the past 13 years and presided over this state of affairs? It all looks a bit disingenuous.

    Agree with all of that, except your last paragraph that’s the wrong way around.

    This is only something that the Tories can oppose, because those introducing the schemes are Labour mayors, and it’s not too difficult to suggest from there that if Labour are elected these schemes will be everywhere. Pay up or get the bus. Except there’s one bus an hour, and not after 7pm.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    TOPPING said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.

    So that's a full 325 people in NZ who benefit from heat pumps. Yay.
    Typical head-in-the-sand arrogance.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    edited August 2023
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy

    'Environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people will mobilise their members if UK ministers water down climate commitments, they have warned.

    Groups including the RSPB, National Trust and the RSPCA have written to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has signalled his willingness to back away from green policies should the Conservatives stand to benefit from it electorally.

    “We will not stand by whilst politicians use the environment as a political football. It is courage and leadership that we need now,” they said.

    “In the past, we have mobilised many of our members collectively with extraordinary results, and our resolve to stand firm now against any and all attacks on this critical policy agenda remains absolute.”'

    Hardly Just Stop Oil. And that was before the latest news.
    All the organisations you name have had middling to large scandals in their recent history but it just goes to show that a good name gives you a lot of oomph to talk bollocks.
    I didn't mention the Conservative Party or HMG, though. And just because the NT upset some folk over labelling such things as a statue commissioned to express hatred of slavery and displayed where it is now by the original owner of the house, doesn't mean they are wrong on this issue.
    It's overreach. I mean it's up to the members to join the NT which gets them membership to some nice houses but they should have nothing to do with government policy on anything apart from, maybe, nice house upkeep.

    Same sort of thing as Emma Thompson.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
    But plenty don't. I used to live in one, set up in the 1980s. Worked just fine.
    Plenty of people used to wear ginormous shoulder pads in the 1980s I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that.

    Google "LTN Fines" and fill your (and the councils') boots.
    The fact that councils treat speeding fines as a revenue stream doesn't mean that it's wrong to impose speed limits though.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,566
    Gardenwalker said:


    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I expect Rishi’s chopper will undo any political benefits of this policy.

    He claims to need a chopper because he is working so hard for this country but he flew to Scotland merely to announce a policy to “own the libs”.

    Between that and his absurd tailoring - now a popular meme on X/Twitter - he is an embarassment.
    It’s utterly memetastic.


  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Not sure why Turnbull and Asser are targeting me on Facebook, but they want £355 for a WHITE & BLUE CHECK COTTON REGULAR FIT SHIRT with single cuffs and three buttons per cuff, eeuw. Almost inclined to pass on this.

    Perhaps some bot had noticed me reading about "absurd tailoring" downthread.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,780
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy

    'Environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people will mobilise their members if UK ministers water down climate commitments, they have warned.

    Groups including the RSPB, National Trust and the RSPCA have written to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has signalled his willingness to back away from green policies should the Conservatives stand to benefit from it electorally.

    “We will not stand by whilst politicians use the environment as a political football. It is courage and leadership that we need now,” they said.

    “In the past, we have mobilised many of our members collectively with extraordinary results, and our resolve to stand firm now against any and all attacks on this critical policy agenda remains absolute.”'

    Hardly Just Stop Oil. And that was before the latest news.
    All the organisations you name have had middling to large scandals in their recent history but it just goes to show that a good name gives you a lot of oomph to talk bollocks.
    I didn't mention the Conservative Party or HMG, though. And just because the NT upset some folk over labelling such things as a statue commissioned to express hatred of slavery and displayed where it is now by the original owner of the house, doesn't mean they are wrong on this issue.
    It's overreach. I mean it's up to the members to join the NT which gets them membership to some nice houses but they should have nothing to do with government policy on anything apart from, maybe, nice house upkeep.

    Same sort of thing as Emma Thompson.
    NT also conserves countryside as well. No point in holding, say, Lundy in trust if it is burnt to a frazzle and all the pufflings barbecued.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Looking for some stats on drivers in the UK I found this:

    https://toptests.co.uk/driving-statistics/

    This particular stat jumps out as much lower than I thought it would be - I know post pandemic there have been a backlog of people wanting to do tests, so am unsure if it would be even lower now?:

    "In 2018, in England, 37% of men and women aged 17–20 held a full driving licence."
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,312
    rottenborough said:

    "the poll found Mr. Biden in a neck-and-neck race with former President Donald J. Trump, who held a commanding lead among likely Republican primary voters even as he faces two criminal indictments and more potential charges on the horizon. Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump were tied at 43 percent apiece in a hypothetical rematch in 2024, according to the poll."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/politics/biden-trump-poll.html

    It's alarming that Trump actually has a good chance of winning. I tied in terms of vote share would likely deliver him a majority in the Electoral College.
  • PeckPeck Posts: 517
    edited August 2023
    Tory strategists know what they're doing. ULEZ is a symbol of the country becoming ever more a place where the authorities - or schools, or private companies - screw money out of you for every f***ing thing they can. "They'll charge you for breathing next".

    It doesn't matter that only drivers of older diesel-fuelled cars have to pay. That's just a detail. This is about EMOTIONS.

    It doesn't matter either that zoning is in the pipeline on a scale that few can currently imagine, and therefore all the talk about getting rid of ULEZ is only chaff anyway.

    The polling in the next week or so will probably show an improvement for the Tories.

    In other news, moving hundreds of asylum seekers to a prison barge, the Bibby Stockholm, is also popular. Just don't call it detention. Nice move that. Whack! No I haven't hit you over your head. Who do you think you are, coming here and insisting that your point of view is valid? Take that! Whack!

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-bibby-stockholm-asylum-move-b2385377.html

    Lawyers say the asylum seekers many of whom have travelled to Britain by sea will be retraumatised by being locked up on a prison barge. Meanwhile the inmates residents are being "provided" with a "worship room" and "entertainment areas". You only have to ask how all of this will play in northern so-called ex-Red Wall seats to realise the answer is obvious. Seriously how are voters who went from Labour to Conservative going to feel when their earholes get hit with the following combination of words: asylum seekers, moved out of hotels, lawyers, claim, retraumatised?

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,154
    War zone sitrep 381

    During my mild kerfuffle over the air raid siren - which was combined with loud but distant bangs - I lost my wallet

    In context, it seems like a mild annoyance whereas normally I’d be most vexed

    Meh. I’m having a beer


  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    Yes. The idea that policies actively harming the environment will make him more popular is ridiculous. I also don't know how much to believe ULEZ lost it for Labour - I imagine a 500 vote deficit would have been dealt with by it just being term time. Indeed, the Lib Dem and Green Party votes would have taken Labour over the line - maybe Labour is just too right wing too squeeze them but still not right wing enough to get Tory voters? Either way, spiteful policies to just burn fossil fuels and promote cars to own the libs might make some Tory voters happy, but it will make more floaters annoyed and piss off the conservationist Tories that exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy

    'Environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people will mobilise their members if UK ministers water down climate commitments, they have warned.

    Groups including the RSPB, National Trust and the RSPCA have written to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has signalled his willingness to back away from green policies should the Conservatives stand to benefit from it electorally.

    “We will not stand by whilst politicians use the environment as a political football. It is courage and leadership that we need now,” they said.

    “In the past, we have mobilised many of our members collectively with extraordinary results, and our resolve to stand firm now against any and all attacks on this critical policy agenda remains absolute.”'

    Hardly Just Stop Oil. And that was before the latest news.
    All the organisations you name have had middling to large scandals in their recent history but it just goes to show that a good name gives you a lot of oomph to talk bollocks.
    What was the National Trust's middling to large scandal? The legacy-of-colonialism stuff?
    yes
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,566
    Miklosvar said:

    Not sure why Turnbull and Asser are targeting me on Facebook, but they want £355 for a WHITE & BLUE CHECK COTTON REGULAR FIT SHIRT with single cuffs and three buttons per cuff, eeuw. Almost inclined to pass on this.

    Perhaps some bot had noticed me reading about "absurd tailoring" downthread.

    My fault.

    Turnbull & Asser are my work shirts of choice.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,312
    It certainly won't do him any harm, but I'd be astonished if Labour failed to win the next election.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,986
    edited August 2023
    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think Uxbridge was the catalyst that sparked a whole new narrative not only about the ULEZ scheme but the rush to green policies that many cannot afford and especially with the cost of living crisis

    Evs are not affordable for millions, heat pumps are not only unaffordable but in many cases not practical, requiring properties to have a 'c' efficiency rating to be sold is also unaffordable for many, and our 2030 ban on ICE cars is silly when the EU is 2035

    I have no idea whether Sunak will benefit from his obvious move to differentiate from Labour, but there are 35 million motorists in the UK who are an important group politicially and indeed the Sun is taking up their cause judging by today's front page

    Another one with “heat pump denialism”.
    Silly comment just as is saying NZ is used in 50% homes in NZ ( actual figure is 40%) when properties in NZ are very different to the UK

    This from the Guardian confirms the high cost and uncertainties chills the heat pump market

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/15/high-costs-and-uncertainties-cast-a-chill-over-britains-heat-pump-market
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Sean_F said:

    rottenborough said:

    "the poll found Mr. Biden in a neck-and-neck race with former President Donald J. Trump, who held a commanding lead among likely Republican primary voters even as he faces two criminal indictments and more potential charges on the horizon. Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump were tied at 43 percent apiece in a hypothetical rematch in 2024, according to the poll."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/politics/biden-trump-poll.html

    It's alarming that Trump actually has a good chance of winning. I tied in terms of vote share would likely deliver him a majority in the Electoral College.
    Yes, it’s entirely feasible, if perhaps still less likely than he loses.

    The UK is entirely unprepared of course for its largest ally giving up on Ukraine (and democracy generally).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,967
    (FPT, as sadly irresistible)
    Casino_Royale said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Costa coffee and pastries are dreck.
    The ad is virtue signalling.

    But also,
    If folks want to get top surgery, let them.
    Casino Royale is an angry nutter.
    Getting pissy about woke, heat pumps and LTNs is going to bore everyone shitless.

    Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.

    You're an angry nutter; I am perfectly rational and sane...
    ... he is Leon.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
    But plenty don't. I used to live in one, set up in the 1980s. Worked just fine.
    Plenty of people used to wear ginormous shoulder pads in the 1980s I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that.

    Google "LTN Fines" and fill your (and the councils') boots.
    The fact that councils treat speeding fines as a revenue stream doesn't mean that it's wrong to impose speed limits though.
    Depends. Many speed cameras are placed to maximise revenue. Or so says the motoring press (another "speed cameras revenue raisers" google). But they are one-sided and what do they know anyway.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Gardenwalker said:

    TOPPING said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.

    So that's a full 325 people in NZ who benefit from heat pumps. Yay.
    Typical head-in-the-sand arrogance.
    Using simple arrows and highlighting please let me know where the heat pumps go here:


  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited August 2023
    Scotland is about to see how popular top down environmental improvements are:

    Patrick Harvie is set to penalise owners of fossil fuel boilers in a shake-up of energy efficiency standards under a “massive transition” to how people heat their homes.

    The Greens minister has insisted that millions of homes will need to clean up heating systems “at a pace and scale that is consistent with Scotland’s legal climate targets”…..

    From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23670366.gas-boilers-set-penalised-energy-efficiency-overhaul/

    Of course the last Green led policy proposal went so well….
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Not sure why Turnbull and Asser are targeting me on Facebook, but they want £355 for a WHITE & BLUE CHECK COTTON REGULAR FIT SHIRT with single cuffs and three buttons per cuff, eeuw. Almost inclined to pass on this.

    Perhaps some bot had noticed me reading about "absurd tailoring" downthread.

    My fault.

    Turnbull & Asser are my work shirts of choice.
    The DR. NO PALE BLUE WEST INDIAN SEA ISLAND COTTON SHIRT WITH DR. NO COLLAR AND CUFF AS SEEN ON JAMES BOND is a steal at £585, but out of stock, to my unutterable chagrin.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think Uxbridge was the catalyst that sparked a whole new narrative not only about the ULEZ scheme but the rush to green policies that many cannot afford and especially with the cost of living crisis

    Evs are not affordable for millions, heat pumps are not only unaffordable but in many cases not practical, requiring properties to have a 'c' efficiency rating to be sold is also unaffordable for many, and our 2030 ban on ICE cars is silly when the EU is 2035

    I have no idea whether Sunak will benefit from his obvious move to differentiate from Labour, but there are 35 million motorists in the UK who are an important group politicially and indeed the Sun is taking up their cause judging by today's front page

    Another one with “heat pump denialism”.
    Silly comment just as is saying NZ is used in 50% homes in NZ ( actual figure is 40%) when properties in NZ are very different to the UK

    This from the Guardian confirms the high cost and uncertainties chills the heat pump market

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/15/high-costs-and-uncertainties-cast-a-chill-over-britains-heat-pump-market
    Someone needs to explain why NZ, which has a GDP lower than the UK, and equally drafty, damp homes, has managed to roll out heat pumps to 50% of the population in the last ten years or so.

    The one advantage is that they didn’t start with boilers. So no existing infrastructure to replace really.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,544
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
    But plenty don't. I used to live in one, set up in the 1980s. Worked just fine.
    Plenty of people used to wear ginormous shoulder pads in the 1980s I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that.

    Google "LTN Fines" and fill your (and the councils') boots.
    The fact that councils treat speeding fines as a revenue stream doesn't mean that it's wrong to impose speed limits though.
    Speeding fines go to the Treasury, it’s a criminal offence.

    It’s the parking fines and LTN fines that go to local authorities.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    TOPPING said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    TOPPING said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.

    So that's a full 325 people in NZ who benefit from heat pumps. Yay.
    Typical head-in-the-sand arrogance.
    Using simple arrows and highlighting please let me know where the heat pumps go here:


    What percentage of Britons live in 1960s brutalist towers?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    SouthamObserver said:

    What is "a motorist"\

    Stringback Gloves (for 'extra purchase'), IAM (scum) sticker, bizarre attachment to paper maps in giant books, 100% stock 2.5 Vectra GSi, claims to be mates with Colin Turkington, doesn't know the difference between open and closed deck blocks, watches Top Gear
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Sean_F said:

    rottenborough said:

    "the poll found Mr. Biden in a neck-and-neck race with former President Donald J. Trump, who held a commanding lead among likely Republican primary voters even as he faces two criminal indictments and more potential charges on the horizon. Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump were tied at 43 percent apiece in a hypothetical rematch in 2024, according to the poll."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/politics/biden-trump-poll.html

    It's alarming that Trump actually has a good chance of winning. I tied in terms of vote share would likely deliver him a majority in the Electoral College.
    I would personally put Trump as only slightly less than favoured against Biden - the economy is seen as bad, Biden hasn't done many of the things that appeal to his base and it's easier to point at how much better than Trump you are when Trump isn't in power. The turning point last election seemed to be Trump getting covid and that kind of reminding everyone that covid was still a big problem. If Trump indictment troubles become mainstream, or his running mate is truly nuts (I still think it is going to be Kari Lake) then he might dip a bit? But Biden and Kamala are not great at campaigning, and last time the Biden in his basement strategy only worked because, again, he wasn't Trump.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,544
    Miklosvar said:

    Not sure why Turnbull and Asser are targeting me on Facebook, but they want £355 for a WHITE & BLUE CHECK COTTON REGULAR FIT SHIRT with single cuffs and three buttons per cuff, eeuw. Almost inclined to pass on this.

    Perhaps some bot had noticed me reading about "absurd tailoring" downthread.

    How much for a shirt!

    Have a holiday in the sandpit and have some shirts made while you’re here. Ascots & Chapels out here will do five shirts for £300.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Leon said:

    War zone sitrep 381

    During my mild kerfuffle over the air raid siren - which was combined with loud but distant bangs - I lost my wallet

    In context, it seems like a mild annoyance whereas normally I’d be most vexed

    Meh. I’m having a beer


    Please don't tell us (well one of us) that you had any cash or credit cards in your wallet.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,341
    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think Uxbridge was the catalyst that sparked a whole new narrative not only about the ULEZ scheme but the rush to green policies that many cannot afford and especially with the cost of living crisis

    Evs are not affordable for millions, heat pumps are not only unaffordable but in many cases not practical, requiring properties to have a 'c' efficiency rating to be sold is also unaffordable for many, and our 2030 ban on ICE cars is silly when the EU is 2035

    I have no idea whether Sunak will benefit from his obvious move to differentiate from Labour, but there are 35 million motorists in the UK who are an important group politicially and indeed the Sun is taking up their cause judging by today's front page

    Another one with “heat pump denialism”.
    Are you willing to offer me a hot bath?
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    edited August 2023
    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think Uxbridge was the catalyst that sparked a whole new narrative not only about the ULEZ scheme but the rush to green policies that many cannot afford and especially with the cost of living crisis

    Evs are not affordable for millions, heat pumps are not only unaffordable but in many cases not practical, requiring properties to have a 'c' efficiency rating to be sold is also unaffordable for many, and our 2030 ban on ICE cars is silly when the EU is 2035

    I have no idea whether Sunak will benefit from his obvious move to differentiate from Labour, but there are 35 million motorists in the UK who are an important group politicially and indeed the Sun is taking up their cause judging by today's front page

    Another one with “heat pump denialism”.
    Silly comment just as is saying NZ is used in 50% homes in NZ ( actual figure is 40%) when properties in NZ are very different to the UK

    This from the Guardian confirms the high cost and uncertainties chills the heat pump market

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/15/high-costs-and-uncertainties-cast-a-chill-over-britains-heat-pump-market
    Someone needs to explain why NZ, which has a GDP lower than the UK, and equally drafty, damp homes, has managed to roll out heat pumps to 50% of the population in the last ten years or so.

    The one advantage is that they didn’t start with boilers. So no existing infrastructure to replace really.
    World Bank says slightly higher, 49,000 vs 47,000 usd. Per capita, which seems the relevant measure.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,999
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
    But plenty don't. I used to live in one, set up in the 1980s. Worked just fine.
    Plenty of people used to wear ginormous shoulder pads in the 1980s I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that.

    Google "LTN Fines" and fill your (and the councils') boots.
    The fact that councils treat speeding fines as a revenue stream doesn't mean that it's wrong to impose speed limits though.
    Correct .

    Although there are some stunning stories in America of more than half of some city budgets coming from fines of various kinds, which is both shocking and hilarious as it means they rely on people breaking the law to function!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited August 2023
    Gardenwalker said:

    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.

    The issue is the poor insulation of UK homes, many of which are old. Around 20% were built before 1900, and around 75% before 1980. In NZ, fewer than 10% predate the 1940s.

    This isn't easy to deal with: retrofitting good levels of insulation to old houses is hard, sometime impossible. Add to that the fact that little has been done to actually make the transition to heat pumps happen: the grid hasn't been updated sufficiently, the cost of upgrading the supply to houses where necessary is prohibitive (we were quoted £20K + VAT), and the supply network isn't there.

    The problem is that politicians (I'm looking at you, Boris) have made big promises about targets, but haven't actually done anything to make those targets achievable. The situation on electric cars is even worse than on heat pumps; Boris told COP26 that we'd ban new petrol/diesel cars by 2030, because (as always) he told his audience what they wanted to hear. But the actual hard graft of installing charging points, upgrading the grid and ensuring the electric cars will actually be manufactured at a reasonable price has been neglected. It's not all going to happen by itself.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,517
    Talking of New Zealand, polling average from the 4 polls published in July.

    Nat 34.5%
    Lab 30.3%
    ACT 12.8%
    TPM 4.5%
    Grn 4.2%
    NZF 3.9%
    TOP 2.2%

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_New_Zealand_general_election
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,341
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Not sure why Turnbull and Asser are targeting me on Facebook, but they want £355 for a WHITE & BLUE CHECK COTTON REGULAR FIT SHIRT with single cuffs and three buttons per cuff, eeuw. Almost inclined to pass on this.

    Perhaps some bot had noticed me reading about "absurd tailoring" downthread.

    My fault.

    Turnbull & Asser are my work shirts of choice.
    Same. Excellent choice.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,117
    Gardenwalker said:

    TOPPING said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.

    So that's a full 325 people in NZ who benefit from heat pumps. Yay.
    Typical head-in-the-sand arrogance.
    Heat pumps are a good idea for new builds and complete refurbs.

    They need to be installed properly as well.

    There is already a nasty little scam on unsuspecting people of charging them a fortune for sticking the air source unit in their garden, connecting it to their existing plumbing and doing nothing else.

    Like selling exploding e-bikes, this needs stepping on.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Gardenwalker said:

    TOPPING said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    TOPPING said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Heat pumps are used in around 50% of NZ homes (climate, not so different from the UK’s), and more so in the colder regions.

    So that's a full 325 people in NZ who benefit from heat pumps. Yay.
    Typical head-in-the-sand arrogance.
    Using simple arrows and highlighting please let me know where the heat pumps go here:


    What percentage of Britons live in 1960s brutalist towers?
    More than do in NZ I'm guessing.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,025
    CarlottaVance said:

    Scotland is about to see how popular top down environmental improvements are:

    Patrick Harvie is set to penalise owners of fossil fuel boilers in a shake-up of energy efficiency standards under a “massive transition” to how people heat their homes.

    The Greens minister has insisted that millions of homes will need to clean up heating systems “at a pace and scale that is consistent with Scotland’s legal climate targets”…..

    From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23670366.gas-boilers-set-penalised-energy-efficiency-overhaul/

    Of course the last Green led policy proposal went so well….

    I want to start a new party. It's called the DoNothing Party. It's manifesto is "Look. Just stop doing things. Yes, I know you all have ideas, but please stop now. We're fed up."
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    kle4 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

    This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

    Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.
    People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

    ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.
    LTN a moneymaking scheme?!
    I know. Perish the thought.

    Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners.
    But plenty don't. I used to live in one, set up in the 1980s. Worked just fine.
    Plenty of people used to wear ginormous shoulder pads in the 1980s I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that.

    Google "LTN Fines" and fill your (and the councils') boots.
    The fact that councils treat speeding fines as a revenue stream doesn't mean that it's wrong to impose speed limits though.
    Correct .

    Although there are some stunning stories in America of more than half of some city budgets coming from fines of various kinds, which is both shocking and hilarious as it means they rely on people breaking the law to function!
    Or they rely on cops making up the law and extracting extra taxes from the poorest people because nobody cares if they are overpoliced.
  • PeckPeck Posts: 517
    edited August 2023
    Are there any spread markets yet on the number of seats each party will win at the next general election?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,879
    Dura_Ace said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    What is "a motorist"\

    Stringback Gloves (for 'extra purchase'), IAM (scum) sticker, bizarre attachment to paper maps in giant books, 100% stock 2.5 Vectra GSi, claims to be mates with Colin Turkington, doesn't know the difference between open and closed deck blocks, watches Top Gear
    No car coat?
This discussion has been closed.