Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
There are probably many reasons these flying cars wouldn't work in practice, but I find the idea so interesting that I think it should be investigated.
Among the possible advantages: They wouldn't need much additional road space, though parking lots would need some changes. Be interesting to see a suburb built to accomodate them, on an island or a mountain.
There are probably many reasons these flying cars wouldn't work in practice, but I find the idea so interesting that I think it should be investigated.
Among the possible advantages: They wouldn't need much additional road space, though parking lots would need some changes. Be interesting to see a suburb built to accomodate them, on an island or a mountain.
Still even if that was the case Trudeau will have been PM for 10 years by 2025 when the next Canadian election is due and the longest serving G7 leader since Merkel.
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
Of course no matter what the cycling provision, some lobby group will come out to oppose them. Physical barrier makes complete sense, but brings out the anti-floating-bus-stop brigade.
It's also only useful if there's a sensible approach to junctions, rather than the common practice of the physically segregated cycle lane having "give way" markings every twenty yards.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
Even when I lived in the south east (slough) public transport for work was only viable if I was working in london or reading and for reading only viable if your office was near the train station so you didnt have to do a train bus combo.
The woeful standard of provision for bikes on trains is something a government with a joined up view of transport would do more to address...
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
Because I think few lib dem votes are votes for the lib dems frankly. I think a lot of their voters will go labour to get the tories out or to the greens because they actually have policies they believe in. ( I don't like the greens policies I will say but right not I think probably they are the only party that has policies they believe in that will resonate with people)
You're assuming Labour voters won't vote tactically for the Lib Dems in seats they have no chance of winning but the Lib Dems do (St Ives, Lewes, Wells etc.).
I dont think the natural voters have forgotten 2010
So how do you explain the big by election wins and councils gained in the last two rounds of local elections?
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Exactly what I just said. Signposting says hours of operation.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
Even when I lived in the south east (slough) public transport for work was only viable if I was working in london or reading and for reading only viable if your office was near the train station so you didnt have to do a train bus combo.
When I first started my PhD at Imperial in 1997, I needed to do a six-week stint at Reading University, so I commuted all the way from Ilford North to Paddington via the Tube, then took the HST to Reading station, and then the bus to the Uni, almost always in time for 9 am.
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
Of course no matter what the cycling provision, some lobby group will come out to oppose them. Physical barrier makes complete sense, but brings out the anti-floating-bus-stop brigade.
It's also only useful if there's a sensible approach to junctions, rather than the common practice of the physically segregated cycle lane having "give way" markings every twenty yards.
I have no idea what an anti-floating-bus-stop is.
Bus stops typically are indented into the pavement so the pavement goes around the bus stop.
A segregated cycle path, like a segregated pavement, should curve around the bus stop too.
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
The thing is the cost of, say, 10 miles of new dual carriageway on average per parliamentary consituency (of course good luck finding available land in many of the most congested areas), would pay for:
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike, and - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes, and - HS2, and HS3.
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Exactly what I just said. Signposting says hours of operation.
Phone 101 immediately - there has been a serious miscarriage of justice!
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
Yep, we used to use it as a carrier gas for our FIDs offshore foir doing gas analysis. Bloody awful stuff and you can never stop the leaks properly even in reasonable lab conditions.
Mind you it works well in buses. I assume they have completely sealed systems.
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
Of course no matter what the cycling provision, some lobby group will come out to oppose them. Physical barrier makes complete sense, but brings out the anti-floating-bus-stop brigade.
It's also only useful if there's a sensible approach to junctions, rather than the common practice of the physically segregated cycle lane having "give way" markings every twenty yards.
I have no idea what an anti-floating-bus-stop is.
Bus stops typically are indented into the pavement so the pavement goes around the bus stop.
A segregated cycle path, like a segregated pavement, should curve around the bus stop too.
It does. Which means the pedestrians have to cross the cycle lane to get from wherever they came from, to the bus stop, and a lot of motoring rights advocates posing as disability rights campaigners are very angry about this. Oddly, I can name a range of bus stops which have a similar relationship with roads, and have never heard a peep out of them about those.
Yeah but that is trained pilots not the average driver who is busy texting or using the rearview mirror to put on their make up or steering with their knees while they eat there muesli
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
Even when I lived in the south east (slough) public transport for work was only viable if I was working in london or reading and for reading only viable if your office was near the train station so you didnt have to do a train bus combo.
When I first started my PhD at Imperial in 1997, I needed to do a six-week stint at Reading University, so I commuted all the way from Ilford North to Paddington via the Tube, then took the HST to Reading station, and then the bus to the Uni, almost always in time for 9 am.
When I worked in reading I walked to slough train station caught a train then walked to the office...I was late for work several times a month due to signalling failures....my record for time to get home was 10:30pm at night after leaving work and getting to reading station at 5:40
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
Of course no matter what the cycling provision, some lobby group will come out to oppose them. Physical barrier makes complete sense, but brings out the anti-floating-bus-stop brigade.
It's also only useful if there's a sensible approach to junctions, rather than the common practice of the physically segregated cycle lane having "give way" markings every twenty yards.
I have no idea what an anti-floating-bus-stop is.
Bus stops typically are indented into the pavement so the pavement goes around the bus stop.
A segregated cycle path, like a segregated pavement, should curve around the bus stop too.
It does. Which means the pedestrians have to cross the cycle lane to get from wherever they came from, to the bus stop, and a lot of motoring rights advocates posing as disability rights campaigners are very angry about this. Oddly, I can name a range of bus stops which have a similar relationship with roads, and have never heard a peep out of them about those.
Same experience here. A sudden deep concern about disabled people. Not a peep about pavement parking though, or the thousands of people made disabled by dangerous driving each year.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
Even when I lived in the south east (slough) public transport for work was only viable if I was working in london or reading and for reading only viable if your office was near the train station so you didnt have to do a train bus combo.
When I first started my PhD at Imperial in 1997, I needed to do a six-week stint at Reading University, so I commuted all the way from Ilford North to Paddington via the Tube, then took the HST to Reading station, and then the bus to the Uni, almost always in time for 9 am.
What time did you normally leave home in the morning?
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
Of course no matter what the cycling provision, some lobby group will come out to oppose them. Physical barrier makes complete sense, but brings out the anti-floating-bus-stop brigade.
It's also only useful if there's a sensible approach to junctions, rather than the common practice of the physically segregated cycle lane having "give way" markings every twenty yards.
I have no idea what an anti-floating-bus-stop is.
Bus stops typically are indented into the pavement so the pavement goes around the bus stop.
A segregated cycle path, like a segregated pavement, should curve around the bus stop too.
It does. Which means the pedestrians have to cross the cycle lane to get from wherever they came from, to the bus stop, and a lot of motoring rights advocates posing as disability rights campaigners are very angry about this. Oddly, I can name a range of bus stops which have a similar relationship with roads, and have never heard a peep out of them about those.
I would not object to that. There's a zebra crossing to get to the bus stop so there's a perfectly safe way for pedestrians to get to the bus stop. No issues at all. 👍
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
The thing is the cost of, say, 10 miles of new dual carriageway on average per parliamentary consituency (of course good luck finding available land in many of the most congested areas), would pay for:
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike, and - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes, and - HS2, and HS3.
Most of those new high spec bikes would end up scrapped as people dont want to use them and if everyone has one that wants one no second hand market
Free buses are a waste of time when they dont go where people want when they want them to and often double the time to go anywhere which is 90% of the country (remember I dont have a car, result is not I use the bus instead the result is I rarely go anywhere unless I absolutely have to even though where I live has a reasonable bus service compared to a lot of places...just takes so fucking long to go anywhere I really cant be bothered)
taxi tokens well that covers about 15 taxi journeys so assume you go and come back almost a week of travelling
I doubt very much it would pay for a nationwide reduction in council tax of 25% and hs2 and hs3 think thats you thinking 10 miles of dual carriageway costs way more than it does....I mean hs2 alone is going to cost more than 100bn
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Exactly what I just said. Signposting says hours of operation.
Phone 101 immediately - there has been a serious miscarriage of justice!
Why? I'm not involved and I haven't seen what the signposted sign says, nor have you shown it or said what it says.
You seem to be unaware of the Highway Code. If there is a sign saying that the cycle path is operational 24/7 then you can never park there. If it says its operational 7am - 7pm you can park there at 10pm so long as you're gone by 7am.
You need to look at the signage. Just the same as anywhere there's a single yellow line. Next time you are there, pay attention to the signage, if you haven't before now.
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Exactly what I just said. Signposting says hours of operation.
Phone 101 immediately - there has been a serious miscarriage of justice!
Why? I'm not involved and I haven't seen what the signposted sign says, nor have you shown it or said what it says.
You seem to be unaware of the Highway Code. If there is a sign saying that the cycle path is operational 24/7 then you can never park there. If it says its operational 7am - 7pm you can park there at 10pm so long as you're gone by 7am.
You need to look at the signage. Just the same as anywhere there's a single yellow line. Next time you are there, pay attention to the signage, if you haven't before now.
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
Of course no matter what the cycling provision, some lobby group will come out to oppose them. Physical barrier makes complete sense, but brings out the anti-floating-bus-stop brigade.
It's also only useful if there's a sensible approach to junctions, rather than the common practice of the physically segregated cycle lane having "give way" markings every twenty yards.
I have no idea what an anti-floating-bus-stop is.
Bus stops typically are indented into the pavement so the pavement goes around the bus stop.
A segregated cycle path, like a segregated pavement, should curve around the bus stop too.
It does. Which means the pedestrians have to cross the cycle lane to get from wherever they came from, to the bus stop, and a lot of motoring rights advocates posing as disability rights campaigners are very angry about this. Oddly, I can name a range of bus stops which have a similar relationship with roads, and have never heard a peep out of them about those.
"Cyclists ignore 'death trap' zebra crossings in London
The Mayor of London has overseen a proliferation of the Copenhagen-style scheme, where busy cycle lanes are wedged between the pavement and a bus stop island, with a zebra crossing bridging the two. This is despite Mr Khan and Transport for London being repeatedly warned in their own reports that the majority of cyclists refuse to stop or slow down at these crossings."
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
Even when I lived in the south east (slough) public transport for work was only viable if I was working in london or reading and for reading only viable if your office was near the train station so you didnt have to do a train bus combo.
When I first started my PhD at Imperial in 1997, I needed to do a six-week stint at Reading University, so I commuted all the way from Ilford North to Paddington via the Tube, then took the HST to Reading station, and then the bus to the Uni, almost always in time for 9 am.
I can actually beat that. 6am taxi, two trains, taxi again, at desk by 9:20am, work til 6pm, taxi at 6:30pm, two trains, taxi again, at home by 10pm. Had to stop because the need for a nap at about 10:30am was a problem if there was a meeting.
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
The thing is the cost of, say, 10 miles of new dual carriageway on average per parliamentary consituency (of course good luck finding available land in many of the most congested areas), would pay for:
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike, and - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes, and - HS2, and HS3.
Please explain your figures.
£20m is a rough estimate of the cost per mile of dual carriageway. So 10x £20m = £200m, for 650 constituencies is about the same cost as HS2 alone.
And 10 miles of dual carriageway per constituency would do massively more than all of your suggestions combined. Let alone HS2 alone.
And not all new roads would need to be dual carriageway either.
"Cyclists ignore 'death trap' zebra crossings in London
The Mayor of London has overseen a proliferation of the Copenhagen-style scheme, where busy cycle lanes are wedged between the pavement and a bus stop island, with a zebra crossing bridging the two. This is despite Mr Khan and Transport for London being repeatedly warned in their own reports that the majority of cyclists refuse to stop or slow down at these crossings."
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
The thing is the cost of, say, 10 miles of new dual carriageway on average per parliamentary consituency (of course good luck finding available land in many of the most congested areas), would pay for:
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike, and - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes, and - HS2, and HS3.
Please explain your figures.
£20m is a rough estimate of the cost per mile of dual carriageway. So 10x £20m = £200m, for 650 constituencies is about the same cost as HS2 alone.
And 10 miles of dual carriageway per constituency would do massively more than all of your suggestions combined. Let alone HS2 alone.
And not all new roads would need to be dual carriageway either.
£20m is the lower bound. £40m seems to be an accepted average figure, with the range anything from £18m to £100m.
So that's 40*650*10 millions = £260bn.
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike: £400 for 70m people = £28bn, £232bn left. - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament: annual fares income £2.3bn, times five, £220.5bn left - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament: annual fares income £10.2b, times 2.5, £195bn left - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament: 10 million rural dwellers, times £250, times 5, £182.5bn left - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament: Council tax raised £44bn annual, divide by 4 times by 5, £127.5bn left - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes: domestic charging point around £1k, times 2.5 million, £125bn left which covers pretty much all of the cost of building HS2 with the HS3 elements reinstated.
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
The thing is the cost of, say, 10 miles of new dual carriageway on average per parliamentary consituency (of course good luck finding available land in many of the most congested areas), would pay for:
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike, and - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes, and - HS2, and HS3.
Please explain your figures.
£20m is a rough estimate of the cost per mile of dual carriageway. So 10x £20m = £200m, for 650 constituencies is about the same cost as HS2 alone.
And 10 miles of dual carriageway per constituency would do massively more than all of your suggestions combined. Let alone HS2 alone.
And not all new roads would need to be dual carriageway either.
£20m is the lower bound. £40m seems to be an accepted average figure, with the range anything from £18m to £100m.
So that's 40*650*10 millions = £260bn.
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike: £400 for 70m people = £28bn, £232bn left. - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament: annual fares income £2.3bn, times five, £220.5bn left - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament: annual fares income £10.2b, times 2.5, £195bn left - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament: 10 million rural dwellers, times £250, times 5, £182.5bn left - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament: Council tax raised £44bn annual, divide by 4 times by 5, £127.5bn left - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes: domestic charging point around £1k, times 2.5 million, £125bn left which covers pretty much all of the cost of building HS2 with the HS3 elements reinstated.
OK, I think you've overestimated the cost of construction and you've massively underestimated the cost of your proposals. Its fair to go with a higher estimate for your figures, but then you need to do the same with all your other figures.
£400 is a fairly low spec new bike, 4-figures for a pretty basic high spec bike. £1000 for 70m people = £70bn which is a bit of a difference.
Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament (absolutely zero investment, pure expense) - this would cost much more than the cost of annual fares income, since if buses became free then more people would use them, so the policy would be more expensive. Moderate assumption cost £4.6bn of which £0 would be investment.
A reduction in train fares - Again £0 in investment whatsoever and a policy that does not apply at all to 95% of transportation in the UK. Why would you even consider this as a proposal? And again you've not counted the fact that if fares halved then the cost would rise.
Taxi tokens - again £0 in investment whatsoever. Why would you even consider this?
Rebate on Council Tax - again £0 in investment whatsoever. Why would you even consider this?
EV Charging points - OK finally some actual investment! Thank you. Though investment that only helps those with driveways/off-road parking, which are the ones who least need support as we transition to EV vehicles.
So overall you've taken a proposal that would vastly improve the infrastructure in this country for decades to come, and turned it into a five year piss-up purely on consumption that after five years would have no investment at all to show for it apart from some EV Charging Points and some bikes that go idle for most people. Great job.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
Because I think few lib dem votes are votes for the lib dems frankly. I think a lot of their voters will go labour to get the tories out or to the greens because they actually have policies they believe in. ( I don't like the greens policies I will say but right not I think probably they are the only party that has policies they believe in that will resonate with people)
I'm sure that's right in seats where the LDs aren't the challenger.
But it's worth dwelling on the 11 seats the LibDems won at the last election.
Seven of them are straight Tory-LD fights. Four of them are straight SNP-LD fights.
Since the loss of Sheffield Hallam, there's not a single LD seat where Labour is the main challenger. So, to lose seats - net - they would need either (a) the Conservatives or SNP to gain seats from them (which is possible), or (b) Labour to win from third or fourth.
For the record, if @Pagan2 is right about LibDem seat numbers after the next General Election, there will need to be an awful lot of crow eaten by the rest of the site.
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line (bit faded, tbf). Mandatory cycle lane.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
The car in your photo is not blocking traffic because there is none. Cyclists, if there are any, can easily ride round it. If the road is due to be blocked to traffic, there is a great deal of wasted space, and if there is a two-way cycle path through the middle, it is not fully pedestrianised.
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
The thing is the cost of, say, 10 miles of new dual carriageway on average per parliamentary consituency (of course good luck finding available land in many of the most congested areas), would pay for:
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike, and - Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament, and - The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes, and - HS2, and HS3.
High spec bikes are so 2022. Sfaict, and tbf a lot is based on delivery riders, cyclists are switching to ebikes (and I see a lot more of them than leg-powered bikes) aside from in town where Boris bikes are, obviously, not electric.
For the record, if @Pagan2 is right about LibDem seat numbers after the next General Election, there will need to be an awful lot of crow eaten by the rest of the site.
For all that Starmer is bland, I reckon more voters could pick him out of a police line-up than would recognised Ed Davey. Paradoxically, that might actually help the LibDems; a powerful central identity might overwhelm its traditional strength which is running a series of unconnected local campaigns, opposing each different incumbent.
Am I the only one on here who still believes in low taxes?
You can't tax yourself into prosperity - that's like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles - and tax levels on earners are already obscene, and fiscal drag is making them worse.
Instead, we need to accept the State doing less. I think we spend far too much on older voters and they need to take more personal responsibility, work a bit longer, save a bit more, and make more provision for themselves.
Still even if that was the case Trudeau will have been PM for 10 years by 2025 when the next Canadian election is due and the longest serving G7 leader since Merkel.
The Canadian Conservatives seem to always struggle to break 40% and rely on a bit of Liberal/NDP split.
Am I the only one on here who still believes in low taxes?
You can't tax yourself into prosperity - that's like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles - and tax levels on earners are already obscene, and fiscal drag is making them worse.
Instead, we need to accept the State doing less. I think we spend far too much on older voters and they need to take more personal responsibility, work a bit longer, save a bit more, and make more provision for themselves.
No, I fundamentally believe in low taxes, but I also believe that our real tax rate is obscenely much, much higher than our politicians pretend it is.
In order to balance a progression towards lower taxes, then we need eliminate all the exceptions to tax rates, and the cliff edges, which would mean revealing the shockingly high true rate of real taxation and starting from that point.
Thus I believe the basic rate of income tax should be somewhere around 40%, with a negative income tax/UBI. Which is actually a much lower marginal rate than almost all on basic rate tax currently face, so would require some belt-tightening by the Government to achieve.
But to tackle any problem the first step is to admit the problem. Pretending the tax rate is 20% when its really 48% or 70% helps nobody, but our deceitful politicians who want to con the public.
@Casino_Royale I missed sorry the reply to your second half of your quote, which is about too much being spent on older voters so they need to take more responsibility. You're right in part but the problem with that is it is largely too little, too late and too much of what is proposed is slamming the stable door after the horse is bolted.
The demographic effects of the baby boom and that boomers would lead to a worse worker to retiree ratio was well known last century, so they should have been saving for it then. It was a major issue I studied when first starting to study economics and politics in the 90s, and it was a key issue that was discussed on 90s political-dramas like the West Wing. Thatcher took steps in the 80s to ensure that state pensions were affordable going forwards, and the country had a healthy private pension sector too.
What we've seen in recent decades, starting in 1997 with Brown screwing over private pensions then introducing the double lock and grey benefit after grey benefit like bus passes etc, subsequently made worse by Cameron introducing the triple lock, is a reversal of that which had been considered in the late 20th century and instead an abuse of political power ratchetting income, rent and taxes towards the wealthiest generation with the most voting power.
Telling today's young people to work harder and longer, telling them to save more while funding the highest ever expenditure on welfare, does absolutely nothing to address the demographic issues that those young people are having to support too many pensioners per worker and giving them too much already.
What we need to do is to abolish the Triple Lock and ensure that pensioners get what they're entitled to and no more. No escalation, no ratchetting. A double/triple-lock if it exists should be to say that those who are working for a living and supporting those who aren't working get at least as much a return on their own labours than those who do not work. So pensions should rise by no more than incomes, and if "affordability" is an issue and the choice is to increase incomes for those working, or increase incomes for those not working, then those not working should get first dibs on what is affordable.
Last year the taxpayer spent more on welfare than it did on public sector wages. That is being made worse with welfare being triple locked and wages going up by less than inflation. Its not healthy, its not productive, and it needs serious reversal.
Secondly, reform housing so that they no longer make an income on rent.
Finally tackle taxation to ensure all earnings are taxed equally. That means abolishing taxes that only apply to some like National Insurance or "Student Loans"/Graduate Tax - and apply tax evenly to all. A pensioner earning rent or a private or state pension should pay the same real tax rate on that income as a young graduate with student loans and National Insurance contributions.
I've already been squeezed to the nines by high taxation in recent years - I pay 62% over 100k.
Enough. If I'm taxed any more I'd seriously consider emigrating with my family.
Yes. Its obscene for anyone to be taxed more than 50%, but those on UC and those over £100k are. Neither is justifiable.
My estimate would be UBI, 40% base rate from £0 [UBI replacing Personal Allowance] to £100k, then 50% from £100k +
Which would be a real terms tax cut for you, even if it seems like tax rates are higher. Because real taxes aren't shown currently, and until you show them, you can't address them.
PS that's an estimate to make it cost neutral. Ideally I'd want those percentages lower of course, but its already a tax cut.
On topic, Sunak seems to think he'll get a good report card for solving problems in the here and now. But, he needs to paint a picture of what his vision for the country is, where he wants to get to, and what he'd use the 2024-2029 parliament for. This would help people understand him and also put his style and background in context.
At the moment, I still have absolutely no idea what it is. If he does he can then contrast this with Labour, and declare he has a LTEP, which would garner him some votes if he stabilises things in the next 18 months.
After that the next most effective thing he could do would be to deliver on Rwanda, and actually stop the small boats rather than talking about it - as it would rally his base, but I'm very sceptical about that.
I've already been squeezed to the nines by high taxation in recent years - I pay 62% over 100k.
Enough. If I'm taxed any seriously consider emigrating with my family.
Yes. Its obscene for anyone to be taxed more than 50%, but those on UC and those over £100k are. Neither is justifiable.
My estimate would be UBI, 40% base rate from £0 [UBI replacing Personal Allowance] to £100k, then 50% from £100k +
Which would be a real terms tax cut for you, even if it seems like tax rates are higher. Because real taxes aren't shown currently, and until you show them, you can't address them.
PS that's an estimate to make it cost neutral. Ideally I'd want those percentages lower of course, but its already a tax cut.
I'm not sold on UBI. I agree that those on UC need to have a very mild withdrawal rate to incentivise work.
20% should kick in at 18-20k, 40% tax should kick in at about 80-90k, and 45% at 200k (or even abolished) if we're serious about low tax, and NI should be folded into it. I'd be open to some sort of overall asset/wealth tax on top.
I've already been squeezed to the nines by high taxation in recent years - I pay 62% over 100k.
Enough. If I'm taxed any seriously consider emigrating with my family.
Yes. Its obscene for anyone to be taxed more than 50%, but those on UC and those over £100k are. Neither is justifiable.
My estimate would be UBI, 40% base rate from £0 [UBI replacing Personal Allowance] to £100k, then 50% from £100k +
Which would be a real terms tax cut for you, even if it seems like tax rates are higher. Because real taxes aren't shown currently, and until you show them, you can't address them.
PS that's an estimate to make it cost neutral. Ideally I'd want those percentages lower of course, but its already a tax cut.
I'm not sold on UBI. I agree that those on UC need to have a very mild withdrawal rate to incentivise work.
20% should kick in at 18-20k, 40% tax should kick in at about 80-90k, and 45% at 200k (or even abolished) if we're serious about low tax, and NI should be folded into it. I'd be open to some sort of overall asset/wealth tax on top.
Those are the rates I'd like to see.
The problem is you either have a universal amount, which then doesn't need tapering, or a non-universal amount with an aggressive taper, or a non-universal amount with a mild taper that effectively just becomes a tax rate for almost everyone.
Lets say that we go with 20% tax and don't want anyone above 40% real tax, then you're looking at no more than a 20% taper in order to keep real tax rates no higher than 40%. But at a 20% taper those on £80k would be claiming UC, in which case now they're on a 60% real tax rate (40% + Taper) and you're back at square one.
A universal one to eliminate the taper is just more honest and transparent, then the rate is the rate and there's no secret hidden rates. Yes it means giving Rishi Sunak the UBI, but so long as he's paying his taxes, what difference does it make? It should net out at him being a taxpayer.
EDIT: Of course this was originally Milton Friedman's idea. It was a right-wing idea, long before it was a left-wing one.
Am I the only one on here who still believes in low taxes?
You can't tax yourself into prosperity - that's like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles - and tax levels on earners are already obscene, and fiscal drag is making them worse.
Instead, we need to accept the State doing less. I think we spend far too much on older voters and they need to take more personal responsibility, work a bit longer, save a bit more, and make more provision for themselves.
Get on your (Deliveroo) bike and work, minister tells over-50s
Mel Stride says economically inactive older people should ‘seek new opportunities’ to boost finances
The over-50s should consider delivering takeaways and other flexible jobs traditionally targeted at young people if they want to maintain their lifestyle into old age, a cabinet minister has said.
In an interview with The Times, Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, said older people needed to be thinking about jobs they “might not have otherwise thought of” if their finances were stretched.
Stride urged employers to give older workers greater flexibility, to attract them back to the workplace. He also suggested that companies should avoid getting dragged into political debates, to make older workers feel at home.
On topic, Sunak seems to think he'll get a good report card for solving problems in the here and now. But, he needs to paint a picture of what his vision for the country is, where he wants to get to, and what he'd use the 2024-2029 parliament for. This would help people understand him and also put his style and background in context.
At the moment, I still have absolutely no idea what it is. If he does he can then contrast this with Labour, and declare he has a LTEP, which would garner him some votes if he stabilises things in the next 18 months.
After that the next most effective thing he could do would be to deliver on Rwanda, and actually stop the small boats rather than talking about it - as it would rally his base, but I'm very sceptical about that.
The problem is he's been Chancellor for years, and Prime Minister subsequently, and you're right he seems to have absolutely no LTEP.
Every major economic decision he has made has been either raising taxes, including his attempt to raise our taxes by 2.5%, or boosting welfare.
All he seems to be about is taxing us more, and ratchetting that money towards welfare.
If that's what he's for, then why not just have Starmer be Prime Minister and be done with it?
At least then we might get an Opposition doing some hard thinking about how we can have growth and lower taxes, because the current Government doesn't have a clue and the current Opposition won't think about it.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
As far as I can tell from that there's nothing wrong with it.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
As far as I can tell from that there's nothing wrong with it.
Its a different kind of NIMBYism to typical.
All NIMBYism is bad, including this, but its hardly shocking that a politician engages in NIMBYism.
Politicians who appeal to people who want no neighbours (due to no construction) are not better than Davies though. He's just more transparently revolting.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
I think 'constituency going at the next election' is pitching it strong. Parts of it are being transferred to Torfaen and the rest renamed from 'Monmouth' to 'Monmouthshire.'
He is also, or was for a very long time, a police special constable.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
I think 'constituency going at the next election' is pitching it strong. Parts of it are being transferred to Torfaen and the rest renamed from 'Monmouth' to 'Monmouthshire.'
He is also, or was for a very long time, a police special constable.
True. I assume he’ll stand for Monmouthshire which I guess will be safe-ish blue.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
As far as I can tell from that there's nothing wrong with it.
I guess the point of the dog-whistle is that not everyone hears it.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
I think 'constituency going at the next election' is pitching it strong. Parts of it are being transferred to Torfaen and the rest renamed from 'Monmouth' to 'Monmouthshire.'
He is also, or was for a very long time, a police special constable.
True. I assume he’ll stand for Monmouthshire which I guess will be safe-ish blue.
Since it's a noticeably Labour voting area that's being moved across I'd be surprised if it wasn't, although the southern M48/M4 corridor is drifting red as more Labour voters move out of Bristol in search of cheaper housing.
According to the tramway museum in Crich, which I had the pleasure to visit yesterday:
I think this hereby concludes our transport discussion.
By the way the Derby dales continue to fascinate. It’s an area I’ve not visited for decades, and strikes me as an English version of la France profonde.
Everything is at least a couple of decades behind here. The shop fronts, the decor, the cuisine (yesterday I had steak pie, peas and beans with gravy for lunch then “tapas” for dinner which was like some 1980s imagined idea of tapas). The dark wooded valleys and dark sandstone towns, all feeling a little bit “Auvergne”.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
As far as I can tell from that there's nothing wrong with it.
I guess the point of the dog-whistle is that not everyone hears it.
Not really. Traveller sites aren't popular due to the noise, anti-social behaviour and crime they can generate. I've encountered bona-fide left-wing liberals who've campaigned against them or supported physical barriers to deter caravans from becoming established nearby.
No doubt Det Insp Steve Thomas would be one of them were such a site proposed next to his house.
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
I can't say I watch much TV at all now anymore.
In fact, I still watch DVDs due to Prime and Netflix fannying around with removing, adding and charging for old shows and films I want to see all the time.
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
Media Nations is always a fascinating report. Despite the decline, I think quite a few of us might still be suspended how popular linear TV watching remains.
Worth having a good read through, if this sort of thing interests you. Working in marketing I have a professional interest in how folk consume media but it’s produced and presented in a very accessible way. Ofcom are good at this.
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
Terrestrial broadcasting fails the excludability test for pricing. Your "subscription model" cannot include broadcasting.
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
There are several options under consideration including a broadband levy which the BBC has been exploring and has told the govt it is keen to explore further.
There is also the Scandanavian model of taking it from additional income tax.
The BBC is keen to keep the cash rolling in. It does not want to have to compete for its money.
However how tenable these would be given this decline in viewing will continue and probably accelerate remains to be seen. You are still making the general public fund the BBC and all of its broadcasting when fewer and fewer people are watching and listening to it and that is not really reasonable in this modern multimedia era.
Personally I favour making the BBC compete for its funding and the public service element funded from general taxation
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
As far as I can tell from that there's nothing wrong with it.
I guess the point of the dog-whistle is that not everyone hears it.
Not really. Traveller sites aren't popular due to the noise, anti-social behaviour and crime they can generate. I've encountered bona-fide left-wing liberals who've campaigned against them or supported physical barriers to deter caravans from becoming established nearby.
No doubt Det Insp Steve Thomas would be one of them were such a site proposed next to his house.
I guess this is an ongoing problem because, although there in no longer a statutory duty to provide traveller sites, the councils are still under, centrally mandated, duty in relation to travellers:
(N.B. the above describes the situation in England, can't see the direct equivalent quickly looking at the Cymru site)
How to discharge that duty is the decision the council have to make, but as with ULEZ a government side politician conveniently denies any hand in this overall system.
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
Terrestrial broadcasting fails the excludability test for pricing. Your "subscription model" cannot include broadcasting.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and get £99k. Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP.
Agreed the personal allowance restriction is an absolute abomination. My proposal gets rid of it and charges a fair effective rate of IT of 50% post £115,000 actual earnings. It helps those £100,000 to £150,000 not uncommon earnings now but makes those post £150,000 pay more. I would not be adverse to 60% IT post £200,000 taxable income.
It is indeed, but the biggest abomination of all is the Universal Credit Taper applying alongside Income Tax and National Insurance.
That leaves low earning people on a real marginal tax rate of 70% plus. Even more if repaying Student Loans too.
If it were up to me I'd look to abolish all welfare, all exceptions to taxation etc, and replace it all with a UBI which is given to everyone [no exceptions], and then a flat tax rate of maybe 40% on everything earned [again no exceptions]. Maybe 50% at £100k+
Oddly enough - and afiar - that was the Scottish Green Party manifesto commitment.
Did it include abolishing welfare? Or just introducing a UBI as an extra layer?
The key for a UBI to work is all other stuff must be abolished. The UBI replaces it all [except maybe exceptional non-income related cases like disability support].
As I remember - yes. One of the offsets to the cost was reducing the overhead of all the byzantine processes of the current system(s).
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line (bit faded, tbf). Mandatory cycle lane.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
The car in your photo is not blocking traffic because there is none. Cyclists, if there are any, can easily ride round it. If the road is due to be blocked to traffic, there is a great deal of wasted space, and if there is a two-way cycle path through the middle, it is not fully pedestrianised.
I posted that primarily to wind up BR. I'm sorry that you are collateral damage.
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
As far as I can tell from that there's nothing wrong with it.
I guess the point of the dog-whistle is that not everyone hears it.
Dog-whistle ... 2. a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular demographic group
I am not sure there's anything subtle about that leaflet tbf.
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
Terrestrial broadcasting fails the excludability test for pricing. Your "subscription model" cannot include broadcasting.
Who says they would have to broadcast?
Fair enough. But a couple of points. First, how is the broadcast radio spectrum (a natural resource) to be used? Handing it over to telecomms possibly. Secondly, the BBC could (should) focus its subscription broadband delivery on live events and news, which can then be made freely available on broadcast channels - and provide a taster/advert for its paid broadband service
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and get £99k. Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP.
Agreed the personal allowance restriction is an absolute abomination. My proposal gets rid of it and charges a fair effective rate of IT of 50% post £115,000 actual earnings. It helps those £100,000 to £150,000 not uncommon earnings now but makes those post £150,000 pay more. I would not be adverse to 60% IT post £200,000 taxable income.
It is indeed, but the biggest abomination of all is the Universal Credit Taper applying alongside Income Tax and National Insurance.
That leaves low earning people on a real marginal tax rate of 70% plus. Even more if repaying Student Loans too.
If it were up to me I'd look to abolish all welfare, all exceptions to taxation etc, and replace it all with a UBI which is given to everyone [no exceptions], and then a flat tax rate of maybe 40% on everything earned [again no exceptions]. Maybe 50% at £100k+
Oddly enough - and afiar - that was the Scottish Green Party manifesto commitment.
Did it include abolishing welfare? Or just introducing a UBI as an extra layer?
The key for a UBI to work is all other stuff must be abolished. The UBI replaces it all [except maybe exceptional non-income related cases like disability support].
As I remember - yes. One of the offsets to the cost was reducing the overhead of all the byzantine processes of the current system(s).
The main reason for UBI (heck the reason why I think we should still increase pensions but charge the tax rates for pensioners to reflect the change) is to reduce the cost of claim processing...
Good News this morning that the hard Brexit for the food industry has been delayed again. We needed to have veterinary certificates done for food imports in October - huge cost and faff just to keep ERG wankers happy. The delay (hopefully to never) will stop another big spike in the cost of food, and reduce the risk of rolling shortages this winter.
Once again we're not remotely ready to implement checks of this stuff (as physical checks of the vehicle / goods / paperwork were to follow in the spring), we never will be ready as the government refuse to invest in what we need to Take Back Control of the border, why not just confirm that we remain aligned with EEA standards and will continue to do so?
The UK has a lower than average tax burden. It's part of the reason we get into so much trouble - we try and spend like Denmark, but tax like Australia.
Good News this morning that the hard Brexit for the food industry has been delayed again. We needed to have veterinary certificates done for food imports in October - huge cost and faff just to keep ERG wankers happy. The delay (hopefully to never) will stop another big spike in the cost of food, and reduce the risk of rolling shortages this winter.
Once again we're not remotely ready to implement checks of this stuff (as physical checks of the vehicle / goods / paperwork were to follow in the spring), we never will be ready as the government refuse to invest in what we need to Take Back Control of the border, why not just confirm that we remain aligned with EEA standards and will continue to do so?
The Brexiteers really made no plans at all. We now have no control over imports, yet barriers to exports. No wonder the economy is flatlining and inflationary.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
Even when I lived in the south east (slough) public transport for work was only viable if I was working in london or reading and for reading only viable if your office was near the train station so you didnt have to do a train bus combo.
The woeful standard of provision for bikes on trains is something a government with a joined up view of transport would do more to address...
Bikes? How about luggage? Lumo is an open-access operator on the London to Edinburgh route. Its trains are 5 coaches long, and have wholly inadequate provision for suitcases. When ordering the trains from Hitachi, First group had to obey a directive issued by the DfT about the number of seats. If they removed some seats for luggage racks, they wouldn't be given an open-access licence by Network Rail.
The government have fetishised seat numbers as they cut costs. Operators can't have more rolling stock, or run additional services other than the ones directed by the DfT. So the number of seats has to be maximised. Hence the infamous "ironing board" seat used for commuter trains in Europe and as long haul seats here. Just cram them in - that way whichever berk is transport minister can proclaim that statistically all is well. Any bad experience you may be having (lack of space due to piles of luggage etc) must be a figment of your deranged imagination.
Comments
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/history/controversial-edinburgh-plan-run-motorway-26768720
Among the possible advantages: They wouldn't need much additional road space, though parking lots would need some changes. Be interesting to see a suburb built to accomodate them, on an island or a mountain.
The slow, low performance one: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/tech/flying-car-faa/index.html
The fast, high performance one: https://www.aeromobil.com/
It's also only useful if there's a sensible approach to junctions, rather than the common practice of the physically segregated cycle lane having "give way" markings every twenty yards.
My new favourite bakery!
OK. Rule 140 says
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Exactly what I just said. Signposting says hours of operation.
Bus stops typically are indented into the pavement so the pavement goes around the bus stop.
A segregated cycle path, like a segregated pavement, should curve around the bus stop too.
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike, and
- Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament, and
- A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament, and
- £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament, and
- A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament, and
- The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes, and
- HS2, and HS3.
Mind you it works well in buses. I assume they have completely sealed systems.
11km (about 6 miles)
18% stationary, held up by car traffic.
Overtook 26 cars, was overtaken 3 times. One of those overtakes was while I was doing over 20 mph, so 3 points for that driver.
Mandatory cycle lanes blocked 11 times by drivers.
Drivers intruded on cycle boxes 4 times.
Free buses are a waste of time when they dont go where people want when they want them to and often double the time to go anywhere which is 90% of the country (remember I dont have a car, result is not I use the bus instead the result is I rarely go anywhere unless I absolutely have to even though where I live has a reasonable bus service compared to a lot of places...just takes so fucking long to go anywhere I really cant be bothered)
taxi tokens well that covers about 15 taxi journeys so assume you go and come back almost a week of travelling
I doubt very much it would pay for a nationwide reduction in council tax of 25% and hs2 and hs3 think thats you thinking 10 miles of dual carriageway costs way more than it does....I mean hs2 alone is going to cost more than 100bn
You seem to be unaware of the Highway Code. If there is a sign saying that the cycle path is operational 24/7 then you can never park there. If it says its operational 7am - 7pm you can park there at 10pm so long as you're gone by 7am.
You need to look at the signage. Just the same as anywhere there's a single yellow line. Next time you are there, pay attention to the signage, if you haven't before now.
The Mayor of London has overseen a proliferation of the Copenhagen-style scheme, where busy cycle lanes are wedged between the pavement and a bus stop island, with a zebra crossing bridging the two. This is despite Mr Khan and Transport for London being repeatedly warned in their own reports that the majority of cyclists refuse to stop or slow down at these crossings."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWPHJsGrK-A
£20m is a rough estimate of the cost per mile of dual carriageway. So 10x £20m = £200m, for 650 constituencies is about the same cost as HS2 alone.
And 10 miles of dual carriageway per constituency would do massively more than all of your suggestions combined. Let alone HS2 alone.
And not all new roads would need to be dual carriageway either.
I'd sure condemn any drivers who refused to stop for a zebra crossing.
So that's 40*650*10 millions = £260bn.
- Everyone in the country to have a new high-spec bike: £400 for 70m people = £28bn, £232bn left.
- Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament: annual fares income £2.3bn, times five, £220.5bn left
- A 50% reduction in train fares, for the duration of the next Parliament: annual fares income £10.2b, times 2.5, £195bn left
- £250 a year in 'taxi tokens' for every rural dweller who won't benefit from better public tranport, for the duration of the next Parliament: 10 million rural dwellers, times £250, times 5, £182.5bn left
- A 25% annual rebate on council tax, for the duration of the next Parliament: Council tax raised £44bn annual, divide by 4 times by 5, £127.5bn left
- The free installation of EV charging points for 1 in 10 homes: domestic charging point around £1k, times 2.5 million, £125bn left which covers pretty much all of the cost of building HS2 with the HS3 elements reinstated.
£400 is a fairly low spec new bike, 4-figures for a pretty basic high spec bike. £1000 for 70m people = £70bn which is a bit of a difference.
Free buses for the duration of the next Parliament (absolutely zero investment, pure expense) - this would cost much more than the cost of annual fares income, since if buses became free then more people would use them, so the policy would be more expensive. Moderate assumption cost £4.6bn of which £0 would be investment.
A reduction in train fares - Again £0 in investment whatsoever and a policy that does not apply at all to 95% of transportation in the UK. Why would you even consider this as a proposal? And again you've not counted the fact that if fares halved then the cost would rise.
Taxi tokens - again £0 in investment whatsoever. Why would you even consider this?
Rebate on Council Tax - again £0 in investment whatsoever. Why would you even consider this?
EV Charging points - OK finally some actual investment! Thank you. Though investment that only helps those with driveways/off-road parking, which are the ones who least need support as we transition to EV vehicles.
So overall you've taken a proposal that would vastly improve the infrastructure in this country for decades to come, and turned it into a five year piss-up purely on consumption that after five years would have no investment at all to show for it apart from some EV Charging Points and some bikes that go idle for most people. Great job.
But it's worth dwelling on the 11 seats the LibDems won at the last election.
Seven of them are straight Tory-LD fights.
Four of them are straight SNP-LD fights.
Since the loss of Sheffield Hallam, there's not a single LD seat where Labour is the main challenger. So, to lose seats - net - they would need either (a) the Conservatives or SNP to gain seats from them (which is possible), or (b) Labour to win from third or fourth.
Woman cricketer: "We watched Barbie the other night all together".
Male BBC presenter: "You're a little Barbie yourself, with your blue eyes."
https://twitter.com/somersetpodcast/status/1686411647903006720
Save us.
You can't tax yourself into prosperity - that's like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles - and tax levels on earners are already obscene, and fiscal drag is making them worse.
Instead, we need to accept the State doing less. I think we spend far too much on older voters and they need to take more personal responsibility, work a bit longer, save a bit more, and make more provision for themselves.
In order to balance a progression towards lower taxes, then we need eliminate all the exceptions to tax rates, and the cliff edges, which would mean revealing the shockingly high true rate of real taxation and starting from that point.
Thus I believe the basic rate of income tax should be somewhere around 40%, with a negative income tax/UBI. Which is actually a much lower marginal rate than almost all on basic rate tax currently face, so would require some belt-tightening by the Government to achieve.
But to tackle any problem the first step is to admit the problem. Pretending the tax rate is 20% when its really 48% or 70% helps nobody, but our deceitful politicians who want to con the public.
The demographic effects of the baby boom and that boomers would lead to a worse worker to retiree ratio was well known last century, so they should have been saving for it then. It was a major issue I studied when first starting to study economics and politics in the 90s, and it was a key issue that was discussed on 90s political-dramas like the West Wing. Thatcher took steps in the 80s to ensure that state pensions were affordable going forwards, and the country had a healthy private pension sector too.
What we've seen in recent decades, starting in 1997 with Brown screwing over private pensions then introducing the double lock and grey benefit after grey benefit like bus passes etc, subsequently made worse by Cameron introducing the triple lock, is a reversal of that which had been considered in the late 20th century and instead an abuse of political power ratchetting income, rent and taxes towards the wealthiest generation with the most voting power.
Telling today's young people to work harder and longer, telling them to save more while funding the highest ever expenditure on welfare, does absolutely nothing to address the demographic issues that those young people are having to support too many pensioners per worker and giving them too much already.
What we need to do is to abolish the Triple Lock and ensure that pensioners get what they're entitled to and no more. No escalation, no ratchetting. A double/triple-lock if it exists should be to say that those who are working for a living and supporting those who aren't working get at least as much a return on their own labours than those who do not work. So pensions should rise by no more than incomes, and if "affordability" is an issue and the choice is to increase incomes for those working, or increase incomes for those not working, then those not working should get first dibs on what is affordable.
Last year the taxpayer spent more on welfare than it did on public sector wages. That is being made worse with welfare being triple locked and wages going up by less than inflation. Its not healthy, its not productive, and it needs serious reversal.
Secondly, reform housing so that they no longer make an income on rent.
Finally tackle taxation to ensure all earnings are taxed equally. That means abolishing taxes that only apply to some like National Insurance or "Student Loans"/Graduate Tax - and apply tax evenly to all. A pensioner earning rent or a private or state pension should pay the same real tax rate on that income as a young graduate with student loans and National Insurance contributions.
Yes, but not sufficiently to alter the outcome of the next election beyond detail.
Enough. If I'm taxed any more I'd seriously consider emigrating with my family.
My estimate would be UBI, 40% base rate from £0 [UBI replacing Personal Allowance] to £100k, then 50% from £100k +
Which would be a real terms tax cut for you, even if it seems like tax rates are higher. Because real taxes aren't shown currently, and until you show them, you can't address them.
PS that's an estimate to make it cost neutral. Ideally I'd want those percentages lower of course, but its already a tax cut.
At the moment, I still have absolutely no idea what it is. If he does he can then contrast this with Labour, and declare he has a LTEP, which would garner him some votes if he stabilises things in the next 18 months.
After that the next most effective thing he could do would be to deliver on Rwanda, and actually stop the small boats rather than talking about it - as it would rally his base, but I'm very sceptical about that.
20% should kick in at 18-20k, 40% tax should kick in at about 80-90k, and 45% at 200k (or even abolished) if we're serious about low tax, and NI should be folded into it. I'd be open to some sort of overall asset/wealth tax on top.
Those are the rates I'd like to see.
Did his marriage fail because he's just a bit of a prat?
https://youtu.be/r8ZioyQZo2k
Lets say that we go with 20% tax and don't want anyone above 40% real tax, then you're looking at no more than a 20% taper in order to keep real tax rates no higher than 40%. But at a 20% taper those on £80k would be claiming UC, in which case now they're on a 60% real tax rate (40% + Taper) and you're back at square one.
A universal one to eliminate the taper is just more honest and transparent, then the rate is the rate and there's no secret hidden rates. Yes it means giving Rishi Sunak the UBI, but so long as he's paying his taxes, what difference does it make? It should net out at him being a taxpayer.
EDIT: Of course this was originally Milton Friedman's idea. It was a right-wing idea, long before it was a left-wing one.
Maybe they deserved each other. Jesus.
https://youtu.be/HbMXYgYxRaY
Get on your (Deliveroo) bike and work, minister tells over-50s
Mel Stride says economically inactive older people should ‘seek new opportunities’ to boost finances
The over-50s should consider delivering takeaways and other flexible jobs traditionally targeted at young people if they want to maintain their lifestyle into old age, a cabinet minister has said.
In an interview with The Times, Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, said older people needed to be thinking about jobs they “might not have otherwise thought of” if their finances were stretched.
Stride urged employers to give older workers greater flexibility, to attract them back to the workplace. He also suggested that companies should avoid getting dragged into political debates, to make older workers feel at home.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/get-on-your-deliveroo-bike-and-work-minister-tells-over-50s-68qbk9dtm
Every major economic decision he has made has been either raising taxes, including his attempt to raise our taxes by 2.5%, or boosting welfare.
All he seems to be about is taxing us more, and ratchetting that money towards welfare.
If that's what he's for, then why not just have Starmer be Prime Minister and be done with it?
At least then we might get an Opposition doing some hard thinking about how we can have growth and lower taxes, because the current Government doesn't have a clue and the current Opposition won't think about it.
The government’s National Security Risk Assessment, which weighs up more than 80 potential threats, was declassified by ministers.
The Cabinet Office said it was aimed at helping Britain to prepare for “worst-case scenarios” rather than “sweep them under the carpet”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-pandemic-next-five-years-virus-disease-risk-cpb08vxtj
David ‘not that one’ Davies. His constituency is going at the next GE, funnily enough. Do you want [x] for a neighbour has… bad associations.
I remember the Tories trying hard to capitalise on anti-traveller sentiment back in 2005. Again, this is an example of a government who are seemingly campaigning from opposition.
All NIMBYism is bad, including this, but its hardly shocking that a politician engages in NIMBYism.
Politicians who appeal to people who want no neighbours (due to no construction) are not better than Davies though. He's just more transparently revolting.
He is also, or was for a very long time, a police special constable.
I think this hereby concludes our transport discussion.
Now let's move on to the spelling issues. It's 'Rosebery' FFS.
A narrow Starmer majority in the GE will be really interesting to see how he can hold his internal coalition together.
The recent winner in Selby and Aiusty, should he win again in the GE is also cut from the same cloth.
There will be a sizeable minority in the PLP who will be fanatics about the issue.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-by-election-candidate-clashes-with-keir-starmer-on-gender-self-id/ar-AA1eHi50?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=d1ce759b562741218c2e4b91f5e7e076&ei=16
Everything is at least a couple of decades behind here. The shop fronts, the decor, the cuisine (yesterday I had steak pie, peas and beans with gravy for lunch then “tapas” for dinner which was like some 1980s imagined idea of tapas). The dark wooded valleys and dark sandstone towns, all feeling a little bit “Auvergne”.
The little Massif Central of England.
No doubt Det Insp Steve Thomas would be one of them were such a site proposed next to his house.
UK traditional TV viewing sees record decline, Ofcom report says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66369532
If the BBC are not frantically trying to work out how to move to a subscription model the moment the licence fee is scrapped they're even more stupid than we all thought.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/03/uxbridge-brexit-tories-anti-green-labour-local
In fact, I still watch DVDs due to Prime and Netflix fannying around with removing, adding and charging for old shows and films I want to see all the time.
Worth having a good read through, if this sort of thing interests you. Working in marketing I have a professional interest in how folk consume media but it’s produced and presented in a very accessible way. Ofcom are good at this.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/265376/media-nations-report-2023.pdf
There is also the Scandanavian model of taking it from additional income tax.
The BBC is keen to keep the cash rolling in. It does not want to have to compete for its money.
However how tenable these would be given this decline in viewing will continue and probably accelerate remains to be seen. You are still making the general public fund the BBC and all of its broadcasting when fewer and fewer people are watching and listening to it and that is not really reasonable in this modern multimedia era.
Personally I favour making the BBC compete for its funding and the public service element funded from general taxation
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/possession_and_eviction/gypsies_and_travellers_protection_from_eviction/local_authority_duties_towards_homeless_gypsies_and_travellers
(N.B. the above describes the situation in England, can't see the direct equivalent quickly looking at the Cymru site)
How to discharge that duty is the decision the council have to make, but as with ULEZ a government side politician conveniently denies any hand in this overall system.
I am not sure there's anything subtle about that leaflet tbf.
Once again we're not remotely ready to implement checks of this stuff (as physical checks of the vehicle / goods / paperwork were to follow in the spring), we never will be ready as the government refuse to invest in what we need to Take Back Control of the border, why not just confirm that we remain aligned with EEA standards and will continue to do so?
Opinions will differ on what is is best.
https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/#:~:text=In 2021, the most recent,which our forecast is based).
The government have fetishised seat numbers as they cut costs. Operators can't have more rolling stock, or run additional services other than the ones directed by the DfT. So the number of seats has to be maximised. Hence the infamous "ironing board" seat used for commuter trains in Europe and as long haul seats here. Just cram them in - that way whichever berk is transport minister can proclaim that statistically all is well. Any bad experience you may be having (lack of space due to piles of luggage etc) must be a figment of your deranged imagination.