There could be some Trump case action today. The prosecution are applying for an order against him banning him from revealing evidence they disclose to him. Their grounds are that he posted to his Truth Social service threatening to go after people who go after him. He has responded by insulting the judge. His lawyers asked for extra time. Guess what. They didn't get it. His side were supposed to respond by 5pm Eastern time. Whether they actually had to respond and will be penalised if they didn't or whether on the contrary they had to make a case by that deadline to stop the judge just saying yes to the prosecution is unclear (to me anyway)
Why do you think all of this legal action is failing to dent Trump's popularity with GOP supporters?
There could be some Trump case action today. The prosecution are applying for an order against him banning him from revealing evidence they disclose to him. Their grounds are that he posted to his Truth Social service threatening to go after people who go after him. He has responded by insulting the judge. His lawyers asked for extra time. Guess what. They didn't get it. His side were supposed to respond by 5pm Eastern time. Whether they actually had to respond and will be penalised if they didn't or whether on the contrary they had to make a case by that deadline to stop the judge just saying yes to the prosecution is unclear (to me anyway)
Why do you think all of this legal action is failing to dent Trump's popularity with GOP supporters?
I haven't considered that side of it much. Because his whole image is of a man in pain feeling his followers' pain, the best-known previous user of that shtick being Hitler?
There could be some Trump case action today. The prosecution are applying for an order against him banning him from revealing evidence they disclose to him. Their grounds are that he posted to his Truth Social service threatening to go after people who go after him. He has responded by insulting the judge. His lawyers asked for extra time. Guess what. They didn't get it. His side were supposed to respond by 5pm Eastern time. Whether they actually had to respond and will be penalised if they didn't or whether on the contrary they had to make a case by that deadline to stop the judge just saying yes to the prosecution is unclear (to me anyway)
Why do you think all of this legal action is failing to dent Trump's popularity with GOP supporters?
For now, polls also show if Trump is convicted half of Republicans won't vote for him again if he is jailed
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Edit: Christ means Messiah, so those who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah shouldn't call him Christ.
You can't be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity.
As I said Muslims also believe Jesus was the Messiah but that doesn't make them Christian either for they also reject the Trinity
But what does your second sentence have to do with the first? Muslims think Jesus was a minor prophet. Nestorians think he was The Man. Trinitarianism is just interpretation. Jesus wasn't Trinitarian. I guess a response to that would be that he wasn't Christian or churchy either. But Nestorians exist today and they do reckon Jesus was The Man, and it's a bit rude really to say they aren't Christians. They think they are.
Are you Anglo-Catholic, HY? Just out of interest. No need to answer if you don't wish to.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
Every time I read an article on this, it reads like a story about something which happened fifty years ago. Can't believe it's happening now.
The underlying problem is that are very few effective controls on demolition of unlisted buildings outside of conservation areas - there are lots of interesting buildings that fall within this description.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are junkies in the habit of blocking roads with piles of rubble before setting fire to buildings in the middle of nowhere?
Of course, I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge of junkies.
Well. I've reached the delirium stage of this illness, with PBers featuring in my dreams. Nothing interesting alas, I woke up from the last one halfway through trying to find a good place to eat around here that was open on a Tuesday night. Argh.
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
If your guess is correct then the second action, sending in bulldozers to demolish a crime scene, would be all the more frigging stupid. Since interfering with a crime scene is a crime in and of itself.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
It was probably torched and levelled to build a fucking car park, to please dribbling sad infanticidal halfwits like you. So you should be *chuffed*
Nice try, though Google Street View confirms it had a pretty substantial car park already in the first place.
Which won't serve much purpose without a destination to visit.
If everyone who is now showing such an interest in preserving this pub had actually been buying pints in it in the first place, maybe it would never have shut down originally?
Marstons sold it as a going concern to another company because it didn’t fit their profile.
Make the "owners" pay to rebuild the whole Crooked House, brick by brick.
This happens far too often in this country, and these criminal gangs/developers get away with it.
There are precious examples where this occurred but it’s rare that the (guilty) company involved has enough assets / insurance to pay for the work.
I suspect this case may be an exception as it looks like multiple companies could be given the bill (the people (or their insurers) who provided the bulldozers are likely to regret it).
Anglicanism really is a load of old bollocks. Neither proper Catholicism nor proper Protestantism.
The Christian equivalent of the Lib Dems.
Goodnight and God bless.
I think Anglicans are still more likely to be Tories than anything else, and non-conformists LDs. (Slightly different observation to the one you were making).
Anglicans in the congregation yes, Anglican priests are very often LD or even Labour.
The most conservative evangelical Baptists, Pentecostals etc do though tend to be Tories
This study has an interesting chart (Fig 1) about political support by religion:
- Anglicans, Jewish respondents, United Reformed Church adherents and Methodists appeared to feature relatively high support for the Conservative Party. - Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Pentecostalists appeared more likely to support the Labour Party, compared with other denominations. - The Liberal Democrats featured its highest pro rata support among Buddhists. - The Brexit Party, still a new party at the time of the survey, had recently stood in the European Parliament elections. 10 percent of Anglicans had indicated that they preferred the Brexit Party at that point, the highest for each of the faith communities. - Those with no religious affiliation, Hindus, Buddhists, Orthodox Church adherents, Evangelicals and Pentecostalists were the most likely in these simple breakdowns to indicate no preference.
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
If your guess is correct then the second action, sending in bulldozers to demolish a crime scene, would be all the more frigging stupid. Since interfering with a crime scene is a crime in and of itself.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
It was probably torched and levelled to build a fucking car park, to please dribbling sad infanticidal halfwits like you. So you should be *chuffed*
Nice try, though Google Street View confirms it had a pretty substantial car park already in the first place.
Which won't serve much purpose without a destination to visit.
If everyone who is now showing such an interest in preserving this pub had actually been buying pints in it in the first place, maybe it would never have shut down originally?
Marstons sold it as a going concern to another company because it didn’t fit their profile.
I've never understood the people who get themselves in to this kind of trouble. It is a world of pain going against a local authority that have it in for you and have the public behind them. Why do it?
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
Yes it's amazing people still believe in fairy stories like religion isn't it?
But then some fantasies are apparently indestructible - some people are still socialists, despite the rout of socialism in 1989. If people need to believe in something psychologically, or because it justifies them taking other people's money, they will do so despite the evidence.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
Yes it's amazing people still believe in fairy stories like religion isn't it?
But then some fantasies are apparently indestructible - some people are still socialists, despite the rout of socialism in 1989. If people need to believe in something psychologically, or because it justifies them taking other people's money, they will do so despite the evidence.
There are still - still! - people who think Brexit is a good idea despite the inexorably growing pile of evidence to the contrary. Bonkers.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
Yes it's amazing people still believe in fairy stories like religion isn't it?
But then some fantasies are apparently indestructible - some people are still socialists, despite the rout of socialism in 1989. If people need to believe in something psychologically, or because it justifies them taking other people's money, they will do so despite the evidence.
You don't have to be socialist to take other people's money, ask Johnson, Kendrick, Mrs Sunak. ...
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Edit: Christ means Messiah, so those who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah shouldn't call him Christ.
You can't be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity.
As I said Muslims also believe Jesus was the Messiah but that doesn't make them Christian either for they also reject the Trinity
Muslims think Jesus was a minor prophet.
There are 25 prophets in the Glorious Quran. Isa ibn Maryam is mentioned as a Prophet (nabi/نَبِيّ) and a Messenger (rasul/رَسُول) of Allah. He is the Penultimate Prophet, second only to the Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) himself. Not "minor".
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
If nothing else, they’d be disqualified by what they put on Facebook and Insta when they were younger.
Anglicanism really is a load of old bollocks. Neither proper Catholicism nor proper Protestantism.
The Christian equivalent of the Lib Dems.
Goodnight and God bless.
I think Anglicans are still more likely to be Tories than anything else, and non-conformists LDs. (Slightly different observation to the one you were making).
Anglicans in the congregation yes, Anglican priests are very often LD or even Labour.
The most conservative evangelical Baptists, Pentecostals etc do though tend to be Tories
This study has an interesting chart (Fig 1) about political support by religion:
- Anglicans, Jewish respondents, United Reformed Church adherents and Methodists appeared to feature relatively high support for the Conservative Party. - Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Pentecostalists appeared more likely to support the Labour Party, compared with other denominations. - The Liberal Democrats featured its highest pro rata support among Buddhists. - The Brexit Party, still a new party at the time of the survey, had recently stood in the European Parliament elections. 10 percent of Anglicans had indicated that they preferred the Brexit Party at that point, the highest for each of the faith communities. - Those with no religious affiliation, Hindus, Buddhists, Orthodox Church adherents, Evangelicals and Pentecostalists were the most likely in these simple breakdowns to indicate no preference.
Jews were even more Tory than Anglicans on that chart, Baptists tended to be Tory too and atheists were likely to be Labour but not as much as Muslims were likely to be Labour.
Church of Scotland members tended to be Conservative or SNP.
I suspect Hindus are more likely to be Tory now with Rishi PM given recent good Tory results in Hindu heavy Leicester and Uxbridge against the national trend
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Edit: Christ means Messiah, so those who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah shouldn't call him Christ.
You can't be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity.
As I said Muslims also believe Jesus was the Messiah but that doesn't make them Christian either for they also reject the Trinity
But what does your second sentence have to do with the first? Muslims think Jesus was a minor prophet. Nestorians think he was The Man. Trinitarianism is just interpretation. Jesus wasn't Trinitarian. I guess a response to that would be that he wasn't Christian or churchy either. But Nestorians exist today and they do reckon Jesus was The Man, and it's a bit rude really to say they aren't Christians. They think they are.
Are you Anglo-Catholic, HY? Just out of interest. No need to answer if you don't wish to.
I am an Anglo Catholic who accepts women priests, which is probably most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England now, the others having mainly left for Rome
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
Make the "owners" pay to rebuild the whole Crooked House, brick by brick.
This happens far too often in this country, and these criminal gangs/developers get away with it.
There are precious examples where this occurred but it’s rare that the (guilty) company involved has enough assets / insurance to pay for the work.
I suspect this case may be an exception as it looks like multiple companies could be given the bill (the people (or their insurers) who provided the bulldozers are likely to regret it).
The Sea Lawns Hotel in Ogmore by Sea was razed to the ground one Easter weekend, despite the developer being unable to get planning permission to demolish and build a carbuncle. Planning permission was rejected on the grounds that as a public house, the building was an asset to the village. However on appeal (several appeals later) the Planning Commission determined that as the building was no longer in existence it was no longer an asset to the village.
The law breaking developer won, and the carbuncle was built. This is what will happen to the Crooked House now. Why build a facsimile of the historic building?
Lab due to trump the Tories Ascension Island plan with a much better deterrent.
In future all asylum applicants will be forced to listen to a SKS speech for 4 hrs a day.
Immigration certain to plummet and Sir Kid Starver fans will applaud the latest red Tory plan.
Hilarious. The wit and originality of your posts keeps me coming back here. Have you thought of a career in political satire?
No I am working on an idea for a satirical political quiz programme at the moment.
The idea is contestants are shown 2 clips of leading politicians (OK its mainly SKS) saying the exact opposite is their firmly held belief and the contestant has to identify which is the current policy.
Unfortunately it is being rejected so far as its too easy as the answer is always the most right wing draconian Kid Starving option.
Lab due to trump the Tories Ascension Island plan with a much better deterrent.
In future all asylum applicants will be forced to listen to a SKS speech for 4 hrs a day.
Immigration certain to plummet and Sir Kid Starver fans will applaud the latest red Tory plan.
Hilarious. The wit and originality of your posts keeps me coming back here. Have you thought of a career in political satire?
No I am working on an idea for a satirical political quiz programme at the moment.
The idea is contestants are shown 2 clips of leading politicians (OK its mainly SKS) saying the exact opposite is their firmly held belief and the contestant has to identify which is the current policy.
Unfortunately it is being rejected so far as its too easy as the answer is always the most right wing draconian Kid Starving option.
Back to the drawing board.
I see a problem with your vision. You’re a total headcase with an irrational and obsessive hatred of the leader of a political rival to your party that you can’t shake.
Here’s an alternative idea for a show. It’s called “Therapy Island” where contestants (okay, mainly you) are sent to an institution where they can get round the clock care for their paranoid monomanias from qualified medical professionals.
I was surveying one of our blue signposted community to community walking / cycling paths last evening, and I came across *this* anti-access barrier. Can anyone explain how it is supposed to work? I have not seen many this nasty.
Anti-access barriers are afaics usually put in under the "but motorbikes" excuse, and stop lots of legitimate users but not motorbikes; Councils then just forget they installed them and go blind to their legal responsibilities. Our LHA is supposed to survey all paths annually.
The crossbar is 1.3m off the ground, which I make as neck / teeth / face height for someone on a mobility scooter or electric wheelchair. So I think I can get rid of it as both illegal and dangerous.
I think it has been there for decades - chatting to local parents it is there 'since I was a child'.
I was surveying one of our blue signposted community to community walking / cycling paths last evening, and I came across *this* anti-access barrier. Can anyone explain how it is supposed to work? I have not seen many this nasty.
Anti-access barriers are afaics usually put in under the "but motorbikes" excuse, and stop lots of legitimate users but not motorbikes; Councils then just forget they installed them and go blind to their legal responsibilities. Our LHA is supposed to survey all paths annually.
The crossbar is 1.3m off the ground, which I make as neck / teeth / face height for someone on a mobility scooter or electric wheelchair. So I think I can get rid of it as both illegal and dangerous.
I think it has been there for decades - chatting to local parents it is there 'since I was a child'.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Nope, I had a complainer wanting a practice run of giving her evidence for a commission last Thursday. So I examined her and then cross examined her on what she had for breakfast to explain how the system worked, the importance of short answers, waiting for the translator, taking your time etc.
The closest I got to "coaching" was many years ago when I had a consultation with a Road Traffic accident reconstruction "expert". He'd been to more accident scenes than I had had hot dinners but he didn't really understand the physics/mathematical formulas and had made errors in his report as a result. I taught him how the physics worked and that amended his "expert" opinion. My opponent was moaning, "he's not usually that good"!
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are junkies in the habit of blocking roads with piles of rubble before setting fire to buildings in the middle of nowhere?
Of course, I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge of junkies.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
The problem with BR's proposal, which is a fair one, is that child casualties tend to be more evenly spread than general casualties. Cycle and car collisions tend to happen at major junctions, adult pedestrian casualties in town centres.
But just looking at the map of child casualties, it's very hard to predict (even schools don't really show up). Politically, difficult to justify a particular street being 30, with kids having to cross larger roads to walk to school.
Make the "owners" pay to rebuild the whole Crooked House, brick by brick.
This happens far too often in this country, and these criminal gangs/developers get away with it.
There are precious examples where this occurred but it’s rare that the (guilty) company involved has enough assets / insurance to pay for the work.
I suspect this case may be an exception as it looks like multiple companies could be given the bill (the people (or their insurers) who provided the bulldozers are likely to regret it).
The Sea Lawns Hotel in Ogmore by Sea was razed to the ground one Easter weekend, despite the developer being unable to get planning permission to demolish and build a carbuncle. Planning permission was rejected on the grounds that as a public house, the building was an asset to the village. However on appeal (several appeals later) the Planning Commission determined that as the building was no longer in existence it was no longer an asset to the village.
The law breaking developer won, and the carbuncle was built. This is what will happen to the Crooked House now. Why build a facsimile of the historic building?
How long ago was that because recent precedents (see darkage's links below) is that it needs to be rebuilt (at vast expense)...
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
What about King Charles the Martyr?
King Charles is a 'Beatus' Blessed - a diocesan bishop can beatify someone but only a Pope can canonise to the sainthood. So after the restoration the Church of England, having bishops, was able to show its loyalty by elevating Charles to the status of Blessed (Beatus) but has no authority to go further.
I think he may be the only Anglican Beatus, but haven't looked into it. Other Anglican worthies, e.g. Wilberforce, are recognised in the calendar, but I don't think any of them have any status.
There are a few churches dedicated to King Charles the Martyr. The one I can think of is in Tunbridge Wells.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Lab due to trump the Tories Ascension Island plan with a much better deterrent.
In future all asylum applicants will be forced to listen to a SKS speech for 4 hrs a day.
Immigration certain to plummet and Sir Kid Starver fans will applaud the latest red Tory plan.
Hilarious. The wit and originality of your posts keeps me coming back here. Have you thought of a career in political satire?
No I am working on an idea for a satirical political quiz programme at the moment.
The idea is contestants are shown 2 clips of leading politicians (OK its mainly SKS) saying the exact opposite is their firmly held belief and the contestant has to identify which is the current policy.
Unfortunately it is being rejected so far as its too easy as the answer is always the most right wing draconian Kid Starving option.
Back to the drawing board.
I see a problem with your vision. You’re a total headcase with an irrational and obsessive hatred of the leader of a political rival to your party that you can’t shake.
Here’s an alternative idea for a show. It’s called “Therapy Island” where contestants (okay, mainly you) are sent to an institution where they can get round the clock care for their paranoid monomanias from qualified medical professionals.
She’s suggesting that they could be prosecuted under an existing statute it appears -
“Those found to be advising migrants on how to remain in the country by fraudulent means could be prosecuted for “assisting unlawful immigration to the UK” which carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.”
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
What about King Charles the Martyr?
King Charles is a 'Beatus' Blessed - a diocesan bishop can beatify someone but only a Pope can canonise to the sainthood. So after the restoration the Church of England, having bishops, was able to show its loyalty by elevating Charles to the status of Blessed (Beatus) but has no authority to go further.
I think he may be the only Anglican Beatus, but haven't looked into it. Other Anglican worthies, e.g. Wilberforce, are recognised in the calendar, but I don't think any of them have any status.
There are a few churches dedicated to King Charles the Martyr. The one I can think of is in Tunbridge Wells.
Tut. Royal Tunbridge Wells to you and me, at least in the midns of some of its inhabitants.
Make the "owners" pay to rebuild the whole Crooked House, brick by brick.
This happens far too often in this country, and these criminal gangs/developers get away with it.
There are precious examples where this occurred but it’s rare that the (guilty) company involved has enough assets / insurance to pay for the work.
I suspect this case may be an exception as it looks like multiple companies could be given the bill (the people (or their insurers) who provided the bulldozers are likely to regret it).
The Sea Lawns Hotel in Ogmore by Sea was razed to the ground one Easter weekend, despite the developer being unable to get planning permission to demolish and build a carbuncle. Planning permission was rejected on the grounds that as a public house, the building was an asset to the village. However on appeal (several appeals later) the Planning Commission determined that as the building was no longer in existence it was no longer an asset to the village.
The law breaking developer won, and the carbuncle was built. This is what will happen to the Crooked House now. Why build a facsimile of the historic building?
How long ago was that because recent precedents (see darkage's links below) is that it needs to be rebuilt (at vast expense)...
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
Children's front doors open on motorways? Some drivers sure think so, anyway.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Lab due to trump the Tories Ascension Island plan with a much better deterrent.
In future all asylum applicants will be forced to listen to a SKS speech for 4 hrs a day.
Immigration certain to plummet and Sir Kid Starver fans will applaud the latest red Tory plan.
Hilarious. The wit and originality of your posts keeps me coming back here. Have you thought of a career in political satire?
No I am working on an idea for a satirical political quiz programme at the moment.
The idea is contestants are shown 2 clips of leading politicians (OK its mainly SKS) saying the exact opposite is their firmly held belief and the contestant has to identify which is the current policy.
Unfortunately it is being rejected so far as its too easy as the answer is always the most right wing draconian Kid Starving option.
Back to the drawing board.
I see a problem with your vision. You’re a total headcase with an irrational and obsessive hatred of the leader of a political rival to your party that you can’t shake.
Here’s an alternative idea for a show. It’s called “Therapy Island” where contestants (okay, mainly you) are sent to an institution where they can get round the clock care for their paranoid monomanias from qualified medical professionals.
Sounds rubbish
I’d watch. Hell, I might even pay for it to be produced.
I was surveying one of our blue signposted community to community walking / cycling paths last evening, and I came across *this* anti-access barrier. Can anyone explain how it is supposed to work? I have not seen many this nasty.
Anti-access barriers are afaics usually put in under the "but motorbikes" excuse, and stop lots of legitimate users but not motorbikes; Councils then just forget they installed them and go blind to their legal responsibilities. Our LHA is supposed to survey all paths annually.
The crossbar is 1.3m off the ground, which I make as neck / teeth / face height for someone on a mobility scooter or electric wheelchair. So I think I can get rid of it as both illegal and dangerous.
I think it has been there for decades - chatting to local parents it is there 'since I was a child'.
Er, perhaps you forgot a photo?
No - you are far too efficient in replying . I have to go to the other interface to add a piccie, which I have now done. I've added it but will not clutter up the thread withy a repost.
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
There are no pedestrians or cyclists permitted on motorways.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Edit: Christ means Messiah, so those who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah shouldn't call him Christ.
You can't be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity.
As I said Muslims also believe Jesus was the Messiah but that doesn't make them Christian either for they also reject the Trinity
But what does your second sentence have to do with the first? Muslims think Jesus was a minor prophet. Nestorians think he was The Man. Trinitarianism is just interpretation. Jesus wasn't Trinitarian. I guess a response to that would be that he wasn't Christian or churchy either. But Nestorians exist today and they do reckon Jesus was The Man, and it's a bit rude really to say they aren't Christians. They think they are.
Are you Anglo-Catholic, HY? Just out of interest. No need to answer if you don't wish to.
Not sure why there is so much confusion over this. He is just a centre forward for Arsenal.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
Children's front doors open on motorways? Some drivers sure think so, anyway.
Irrelevant. Your aim is to lower the incidence of traffic fatalities. Surely yours isn't a "will no one think of the children" post. Why are you not thinking of those people (adults and children) using the motorways who will die with the speed limit as is. Indeed the tragic case of the 12-yr old killed making his way from the central reservation to the hard shoulder wouldn't have happened with a 20mph speed limit.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
There are no pedestrians or cyclists permitted on motorways.
The objection was to the argument that 20mph is a no brainer because it saves lives. It would save lives on motorways too of course.
Of course BR is right that saving lives, as noble as that may be, is rarely the sole consideration of public policy.
She’s suggesting that they could be prosecuted under an existing statute it appears -
“Those found to be advising migrants on how to remain in the country by fraudulent means could be prosecuted for “assisting unlawful immigration to the UK” which carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.”
I thought reusing an old law in new ways was just tickety-boo?
Or is that just for people you don’t like?
Wouldn’t the lawyer also be engaging in Misconduct in A Public Office?
She’s suggesting that they could be prosecuted under an existing statute it appears -
“Those found to be advising migrants on how to remain in the country by fraudulent means could be prosecuted for “assisting unlawful immigration to the UK” which carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.”
She should be careful here. I can think of a Secretary of State who assists unlawful immigration through a mix of incompetence, arrongance and the introduction of new laws that won't stand up in court so waste time, resources and energy.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
The problem with BR's proposal, which is a fair one, is that child casualties tend to be more evenly spread than general casualties. Cycle and car collisions tend to happen at major junctions, adult pedestrian casualties in town centres.
But just looking at the map of child casualties, it's very hard to predict (even schools don't really show up). Politically, difficult to justify a particular street being 30, with kids having to cross larger roads to walk to school.
From what you've just said, politically difficult to justify particular streets being 20.
If you can't say that a road is high risk, there's no reason for it being a 20.
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
Put the wind farms out to sea Where the real estate is free And it’s far away from me
With apologies to the USN team that sold Polaris to the US Congress and Senate.
Too many times, infrastructure projects are not considered by taking into account the planning issues.
While we have the right to a decade of enquiries on major projects, then those projects will lose to the ones that don’t.
For example - grid storage in the U.K. will be shaped by the fact that small installations (30MWh or less, IIRC) don’t need specific planning. So if you park up a few trailers of batteries on some land you own, it is virtually impossible to stop you.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
I’m literally writing 15,000 words on this very issue at the moment. It’s quite a bit more complex than that but, admittedly, the only post-Reformatiom saint the CoE have got round to formally acclaiming is Charles I and even he’s not universally accepted.
Basically the idea of the Pope acclaiming saints is a relatively recent invention. The Protestants in the sixteenth century were not against saints per se but they looked at them with a critical eye. Thomas Becket is the major example of someone being desainted by the new CoE although he got let back in through the back door of popular tradition.
Very dodgy, old Thos, I assume? Best known for telling a King where to get off in terms of interference with the Church in England.
A king named Henry as well which was, in the circumstances, even worse.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
What an absurd post. Do you also post as Leon?
The aim of lowering the speed everywhere in Wales is presumably to lower traffic fatalities and injuries. People are saying it is disproportionate. I am just trying to work out where *you* think the line should be drawn on reducing traffic fatalities. In Wales = yes; on motorways = no.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
Put the wind farms out to sea Where the real estate is free And it’s far away from me
With apologies to the USN team that sold Polaris to the US Congress and Senate.
Too many times, infrastructure projects are not considered by taking into account the planning issues.
While we have the right to a decade of enquiries on major projects, then those projects will lose to the ones that don’t.
For example - grid storage in the U.K. will be shaped by the fact that small installations (30MWh or less, IIRC) don’t need specific planning. So if you park up a few trailers of batteries on some land you own, it is virtually impossible to stop you.
Grid Storage in the UK will be shaped by electric cars too.
There are ~40 million vehicles in the UK. If we estimate 30 million of them to be getting charged regularly with an average of 100 kWh battery size, then that is a distributed 1.08 x 10^16 kJ of power storage. Or 100,000 of your 30 MWh battery trailers.
The boy Chalk on fine form again on R4. I can’t remember hearing an interview with a politician so on top of their brief and actually answering questions. Don’t get rid of him Cheltenham.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
She’s suggesting that they could be prosecuted under an existing statute it appears -
“Those found to be advising migrants on how to remain in the country by fraudulent means could be prosecuted for “assisting unlawful immigration to the UK” which carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.”
Surely if they are self-declared asylum seekers it is not "unlawful immigration".
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
Put the wind farms out to sea Where the real estate is free And it’s far away from me
With apologies to the USN team that sold Polaris to the US Congress and Senate.
Too many times, infrastructure projects are not considered by taking into account the planning issues.
While we have the right to a decade of enquiries on major projects, then those projects will lose to the ones that don’t.
For example - grid storage in the U.K. will be shaped by the fact that small installations (30MWh or less, IIRC) don’t need specific planning. So if you park up a few trailers of batteries on some land you own, it is virtually impossible to stop you.
That particular case, though, is no bad thing. A more distributed system of storage is a more resilient one.
Of course your point regarding large infrastructure projects is still correct.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
Sounds like they have ample justification in that case.
She’s suggesting that they could be prosecuted under an existing statute it appears -
“Those found to be advising migrants on how to remain in the country by fraudulent means could be prosecuted for “assisting unlawful immigration to the UK” which carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.”
Surely if they are self-declared asylum seekers it is not "unlawful immigration".
Is Self-ID allowed or is that a different debate ?
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Without overdramatising it all, it is nevertheless a further encroachment of the state into our affairs. But of course the state already determines speed limits and so much else, but to a certain type of person, this represents the misuse of state powers for a particular hobby horse (what is it I've no idea, that said, with Drakeford - green? safety?). That is what I object to. It is the use of the legitimate levers of government (setting speed limits) to achieve a niche (imo) objective (whatever that is).
Hence I disagree with it. On principle.
So if people vote against it, they won't be voting for a 30mph speed limit, they would be voting against someone wielding their legitimate powers in such a way.
Another dagger struck in the dark heart of Climate change
Ideal in Hull, boiler manufacturer and they have been pioneering Hydrogen boilers (which seem dead in the water) launch their first UK Heat Pump production line.
I expect more of these to come and the price of heat pumps to start to fall in future.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
What an absurd post. Do you also post as Leon?
The aim of lowering the speed everywhere in Wales is presumably to lower traffic fatalities and injuries. People are saying it is disproportionate. I am just trying to work out where *you* think the line should be drawn on reducing traffic fatalities. In Wales = yes; on motorways = no.
Is all.
It isn't "everwhere", of course - that's a large exaggeration; it is essentially roads which currently have the "default" speed limit where there are lampposts at <200m spacing and no speed limit signs, plus existing 20mph limit zones. That does not apply generally afaics to roads outside communities.
Where other limits are set by Regulation Orders and similar, there are exceptions and a continuing exception process. There's even an interactive map showing changes.
The Welsh Government has been running trials for a year, and a monitoring report was published last March.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
I generally find that counting to 30 after a bad driving incident is sufficient to overcome any instinct to confront the perp. If someone is on your tail then pull over. I am driven much crazier by middle lane hoggers than by tailgaters.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
No particular area for child casualties, cos they happen everywhere. Certainly hot spots for other types of casualties.
"Vote Tory for high speeds in your neighbourhood". Just bizarre.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Without overdramatising it all, it is nevertheless a further encroachment of the state into our affairs. But of course the state already determines speed limits and so much else, but to a certain type of person, this represents the misuse of state powers for a particular hobby horse (what is it I've no idea, that said, with Drakeford - green? safety?). That is what I object to. It is the use of the legitimate levers of government (setting speed limits) to achieve a niche (imo) objective (whatever that is).
Hence I disagree with it. On principle.
So if people vote against it, they won't be voting for a 30mph speed limit, they would be voting against someone wielding their legitimate powers in such a way.
But surely speed limits are, and always have been, closely related to issues of road safety? That's niche only in the sense that the instrument is itself pretty focussed. They aren't being imposed, for instance, to make it harder for Welshmen to get drunk quickly by bringing their Felinfoel six-packs home from the supermarket a few minutes earlier.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
Make the "owners" pay to rebuild the whole Crooked House, brick by brick.
This happens far too often in this country, and these criminal gangs/developers get away with it.
There are precious examples where this occurred but it’s rare that the (guilty) company involved has enough assets / insurance to pay for the work.
I suspect this case may be an exception as it looks like multiple companies could be given the bill (the people (or their insurers) who provided the bulldozers are likely to regret it).
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
If your guess is correct then the second action, sending in bulldozers to demolish a crime scene, would be all the more frigging stupid. Since interfering with a crime scene is a crime in and of itself.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
It was probably torched and levelled to build a fucking car park, to please dribbling sad infanticidal halfwits like you. So you should be *chuffed*
Nice try, though Google Street View confirms it had a pretty substantial car park already in the first place.
Which won't serve much purpose without a destination to visit.
If everyone who is now showing such an interest in preserving this pub had actually been buying pints in it in the first place, maybe it would never have shut down originally?
Marstons sold it as a going concern to another company because it didn’t fit their profile.
I've never understood the people who get themselves in to this kind of trouble. It is a world of pain going against a local authority that have it in for you and have the public behind them. Why do it?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
If you want an engineering justification on speed limits...
Reducing speeds from 30 to 20 roughly halves kinetic energy. But many cars have roughly doubled in mass since my youth- minis gave gone from 620 kg to about 1200 kg. So cutting the speed limit where pedestrians are likely to be around is just restoring survival chances to what they were.
So have a KE limit rather than a speed limit. Totally impractical, of course, but it utterly screws the use of SUVs on the road, which is how it should be.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
The speed limit change in Wales seems to be for no reason I can see in particular, and I am not going to read those links, @MattW, and is just being done just because it can be done. Not for any cost/benefit safety reasons.
If it is not done for safety reasons beyond everyone will be incrementally safer (ie it is not a hot spot) then imo it is unnecessary and an abuse and you can argue why shouldn't motorway speeds, using similarly rigorous logic, also be reduced to 20mph.
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
People prefer extra consumption over extra investment.
And why bother investing if you're a business - if it works and higher profits results you'll be condemned for being greedy and you might be taxed more.
The only profitable investment which is admired is through property ownership and its increase in price.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
But 20mph works even better. If you are happy to modify speed to reduce deaths by 7 percentage points or so, and exactly the same is possible by going downb to 20 ...
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
So let's have a 20mph speed limit on motorways. My original point. You would save lives and reduce injury. What's not to like.
Comments
Because his whole image is of a man in pain feeling his followers' pain, the best-known previous user of that shtick being Hitler?
As I said Muslims also believe Jesus was the Messiah but that doesn't make them Christian either for they also reject the Trinity
Are you Anglo-Catholic, HY? Just out of interest. No need to answer if you don't wish to.
R
U
S
S
rhymes with
B
U
S
Just think about that for a moment
That's so unfair. We also hear about the efforts to avoid curbing anything that may harm the environment.
Of course, I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge of junkies.
This happens far too often in this country, and these criminal gangs/developers get away with it.
I suspect this case may be an exception as it looks like multiple companies could be given the bill (the people (or their insurers) who provided the bulldozers are likely to regret it).
http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/religion-and-party-preference-in-2019/
It argues that:
- Anglicans, Jewish respondents, United Reformed Church adherents and Methodists appeared to feature relatively high support for the Conservative Party.
- Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Pentecostalists appeared more likely to support the Labour Party, compared with other denominations.
- The Liberal Democrats featured its highest pro rata support among Buddhists.
- The Brexit Party, still a new party at the time of the survey, had recently stood in the European Parliament elections. 10 percent of Anglicans had indicated that they preferred the Brexit Party at that point, the highest for each of the faith communities.
- Those with no religious affiliation, Hindus, Buddhists, Orthodox Church adherents, Evangelicals and Pentecostalists were the most likely in these simple breakdowns to indicate no preference.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/10/developers-who-destroyed-historic-lancashire-pub-punch-bowl-inn-hurst-green-ordered-to-rebuild-it
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/21/rising-from-the-rubble-london-pub-rebuilt-brick-by-brick-after-bulldozing
https://witnessdirectory.com/newsdetails.php?id=48
But then some fantasies are apparently indestructible - some people are still socialists, despite the rout of socialism in 1989. If people need to believe in something psychologically, or because it justifies them taking other people's money, they will do so despite the evidence.
...
Church of Scotland members tended to be Conservative or SNP.
I suspect Hindus are more likely to be Tory now with Rishi PM given recent good Tory results in Hindu heavy Leicester and Uxbridge against the national trend
In future all asylum applicants will be forced to listen to a SKS speech for 4 hrs a day.
Immigration certain to plummet and Sir Kid Starver fans will applaud the latest red Tory plan.
The law breaking developer won, and the carbuncle was built. This is what will happen to the Crooked House now. Why build a facsimile of the historic building?
The idea is contestants are shown 2 clips of leading politicians (OK its mainly SKS) saying the exact opposite is their firmly held belief and the contestant has to identify which is the current policy.
Unfortunately it is being rejected so far as its too easy as the answer is always the most right wing draconian Kid Starving option.
Back to the drawing board.
This is bonkers. Life in Jail. Don't get it and I am not one of the handwringers about asylum either.
I did assume lawyers coached their clients anyway.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/crooked-lawyers-who-coach-small-boat-migrants-to-lie-face-life-in-jail-announces-braverman/ar-AA1eVkBV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=910a84262d894b7492f77df524800df7&ei=11
Here’s an alternative idea for a show. It’s called “Therapy Island” where contestants (okay, mainly you) are sent to an institution where they can get round the clock care for their paranoid monomanias from qualified medical professionals.
I think we have some Councillors on here.
I was surveying one of our blue signposted community to community walking / cycling paths last evening, and I came across *this* anti-access barrier. Can anyone explain how it is supposed to work? I have not seen many this nasty.
Anti-access barriers are afaics usually put in under the "but motorbikes" excuse, and stop lots of legitimate users but not motorbikes; Councils then just forget they installed them and go blind to their legal responsibilities. Our LHA is supposed to survey all paths annually.
The crossbar is 1.3m off the ground, which I make as neck / teeth / face height for someone on a mobility scooter or electric wheelchair. So I think I can get rid of it as both illegal and dangerous.
I think it has been there for decades - chatting to local parents it is there 'since I was a child'.
BJO has the name of a lefty Lawyer to top her list.
Surely someone he represented sometime must have hired a small boat in a park with a boating lake.
Come in number 69 your time is up!
The closest I got to "coaching" was many years ago when I had a consultation with a Road Traffic accident reconstruction "expert". He'd been to more accident scenes than I had had hot dinners but he didn't really understand the physics/mathematical formulas and had made errors in his report as a result. I taught him how the physics worked and that amended his "expert" opinion. My opponent was moaning, "he's not usually that good"!
But just looking at the map of child casualties, it's very hard to predict (even schools don't really show up). Politically, difficult to justify a particular street being 30, with kids having to cross larger roads to walk to school.
I think he may be the only Anglican Beatus, but haven't looked into it. Other Anglican worthies, e.g. Wilberforce, are recognised in the calendar, but I don't think any of them have any status.
There are a few churches dedicated to King Charles the Martyr. The one I can think of is in Tunbridge Wells.
“Those found to be advising migrants on how to remain in the country by fraudulent means could be prosecuted for “assisting unlawful immigration to the UK” which carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.”
No wonder they've gone for Charles the Malignant.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20393381
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
This is the location:
https://tinyurl.com/BarrierCharnwoodStreet
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
Of course BR is right that saving lives, as noble as that may be, is rarely the sole consideration of public policy.
Or is that just for people you don’t like?
Wouldn’t the lawyer also be engaging in Misconduct in A Public Office?
If you can't say that a road is high risk, there's no reason for it being a 20.
Where the real estate is free
And it’s far away from me
With apologies to the USN team that sold Polaris to the US Congress and Senate.
Too many times, infrastructure projects are not considered by taking into account the planning issues.
While we have the right to a decade of enquiries on major projects, then those projects will lose to the ones that don’t.
For example - grid storage in the U.K. will be shaped by the fact that small installations (30MWh or less, IIRC) don’t need specific planning. So if you park up a few trailers of batteries on some land you own, it is virtually impossible to stop you.
I see Braverman remains a moron.
Is all.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
There are ~40 million vehicles in the UK. If we estimate 30 million of them to be getting charged regularly with an average of 100 kWh battery size, then that is a distributed 1.08 x 10^16 kJ of power storage. Or 100,000 of your 30 MWh battery trailers.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
A more distributed system of storage is a more resilient one.
Of course your point regarding large infrastructure projects is still correct.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Hence I disagree with it. On principle.
So if people vote against it, they won't be voting for a 30mph speed limit, they would be voting against someone wielding their legitimate powers in such a way.
Ideal in Hull, boiler manufacturer and they have been pioneering Hydrogen boilers (which seem dead in the water) launch their first UK Heat Pump production line.
I expect more of these to come and the price of heat pumps to start to fall in future.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/ideal-heating-launches-first-uk-heat-pump-production-line-at-hull-site-as-part-of-60m-net-zero-drive/ar-AA1eUy9f?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=ef8478e622cf4454a10e8577494947d4&ei=19
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
Where other limits are set by Regulation Orders and similar, there are exceptions and a continuing exception process. There's even an interactive map showing changes.
The Welsh Government has been running trials for a year, and a monitoring report was published last March.
Guidance for exceptions was published in November 2022. LHAs have been consulting on exceptions.
https://www.gov.wales/setting-exceptions-20mph-default-speed-limit-restricted-roads
The actual detail is here:
https://www.gov.wales/setting-exceptions-20mph-default-speed-limit-restricted-roads-html
It all seems careful, measured and rational. I wish we had it in England.
"Vote Tory for high speeds in your neighbourhood". Just bizarre.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
Reducing speeds from 30 to 20 roughly halves kinetic energy. But many cars have roughly doubled in mass since my youth- minis gave gone from 620 kg to about 1200 kg. So cutting the speed limit where pedestrians are likely to be around is just restoring survival chances to what they were.
So have a KE limit rather than a speed limit. Totally impractical, of course, but it utterly screws the use of SUVs on the road, which is how it should be.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
If it is not done for safety reasons beyond everyone will be incrementally safer (ie it is not a hot spot) then imo it is unnecessary and an abuse and you can argue why shouldn't motorway speeds, using similarly rigorous logic, also be reduced to 20mph.
And why bother investing if you're a business - if it works and higher profits results you'll be condemned for being greedy and you might be taxed more.
The only profitable investment which is admired is through property ownership and its increase in price.