Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
But you have to relatively rich to spend £15,000 on a Merc estate, or to have bought one new 10 years ago. So yes, it will harm some people, but it won't be the poor (who can't afford cars) or the not-quite-so-poor (who can't afford a Merc estate).
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
A working class resident of Havering or Bexley or Hillingdon for example is more likely to own a car than even a high earner in central London unless they are on benefits or a really low income
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
That is a bit disingenuous as well. As with so many things it is not the value of the current item that matters it is the cost of replacing it with something that does the same job.
So huge numbers of people around the country live in fear of their car being in an accident and written off by the insurers for some fairly minor damage because the value they would get for it would go nowhere towards buying a replacement.
You have to judge someone by their track record. Many moons ago, Hancock wrote "The Mars Mystery", which took the infamous "Face on Mars" as the basis of the idea that Mars once housed a society.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
Can I just say that notwithstanding this morning comments I have never doubted for one minute your support for the RNLI
Good! So now we have poked at the straw man and set it aside, can we get back to the debate?
46% of London households have no car. So "half" as Khan claimed is simple reality, not showing he is "out of touch" as you claimed. The policy is popular in London as polls show. The policy is one which this government supported as recently as 2021. Expansion of ULEZ was a condition of the government bailing out TfL from its Covid bankruptcy.
So given that this government supports the policy, why is it now against it? Why is Harper writing to Starmer demanding that he withdraw the policy? Complaining that the Tories have failed to "fix Labour's Act" despite having 13 years to do it?
Could it be simple gross hypocrisy and political opportunism? They had no issue with the policy or the GLA Act until now. But with a political lifeboat issue to cling to they need to blame someone else.
My point about Khan's half of Londoners do not have cars is that outside of London that is not the case and indeed it now seems Sutton Lib dems have joined the opposition to Khan's implementation
The original ULEZ backed by Johnson for central London was sensible and has been effective , but rolling it out to outer London has caused a huge controversy, not least seeing Starmer who leads the Labour Party of which Khan is a member asking him to review it
Indeed it is difficult to find a Labour mp backing Khan and now we have Sutton Lib Dems lining up against the policy
You would be misreading the politics if you think this is just conservatives who are opposing it
It took me a while to work out that the R&W numbers on the chart aren't wrong, they are just before adjusting for don't knows. And the interesting thing here, a kind of mild Dutch salute (a Belgian salute?), is that don't knows have subsided from broadly 15% of the electorate at the end of 2022 to closer to 10-12% now. That leaves less room for swingback. Bad news for Rishi.
The good news for Rishi from R&W is that their figure for Reform has risen by a similar amount in the same timeframe. Does that mean there's a number of former conservative voters who spent 2022 discombobulated at the self-destruction of their party but weren't ready to jump ship yet, who are now convinced Rishi won't stop the boats and are claiming they're going to go out and vote Reform? I wouldn't be surprised. And guess what: like the Labour lefties swearing blind they'll vote Green in protest at Tory Starmer before holding their noses at the last minute, once these Reform minded hard-men reach the polling booth they'll mostly meekly tuck their tails between their legs and put a cross in the Conservative box.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Mine's eight years old, and not compliant. It's also high mileage.
Just plugging the numbers into Autotrader comes up with £4,000
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
A working class resident of Havering or Bexley or Hillingdon for example is more likely to own a car than even a high earner in central London unless they are on benefits or a really low income
I'm not even sure that's true but if you have evidence that it is I'd love to see it.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
A working class resident of Havering or Bexley or Hillingdon for example is more likely to own a car than even a high earner in central London unless they are on benefits or a really low income
I'm not even sure that's true but if you have evidence that it is I'd love to see it.
Can't provide any evidence off the top of my head - sorry - but what HYUFD says in this case feels right to me, and also echoes what I believe is the case in Greater Manchester.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
If I may politely disagree (I know. Irony). Everybody who posts here is allowed to post here by definition. Those who are not allowed to post here are banned (@RodCrosby, @isam, @MrEd, @StuartDickson, @SeanT, @IshmaelZ, etc) but it is possible for a banned poster to return under a different name. The fact that you are here complaining about the site being an echo chamber is proof that it isn't.
The site does have its problems, thus
Posters have their hobbyhorses which they ride incessantly.
We are in a trough of few elections that the UK is interested in and as a result those who talk about politics are in the ascendancy, which inevitably brings disagreement.
The site ignores elections outside a narrow band: The Greek and Spanish elections 2023 were little commented upon. The Polish election is Oct 15 and I doubt we'll see an article, but we might for the 2023 US state elections in November
The site is not consistently moderated as the mods are three different people who have different opinions. And shoes.
The site is not consistent as the mood changes on time of day, with the overnight being more reflective than the day, and the evening being more aggressive (the site has a higher proportion of drinkers and out-and-out alcoholics who can get disorganised/shouty).
Brigading. Individuals can be ganged up on and isolated, with @HYUFD being the most egregious example of an isolatee
But these problems are solved by more people joining in, not less. The site will never be perfect (it is a site for wealthy boomers to talk about their politics) but I think in mid-2024 when the US and UK elections become more salient things will improve
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain went to Birmingham and Lord Bute went to Leiden I believe too
Plus Bonar Law went to Glasgow and a few others went to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Birmingham as well as Oxbridge
Did he? When?
My understanding is he attended some extra mural lectures as a member of the public but from the age of 16 was apprenticed to the family business.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
Can I just say that notwithstanding this morning comments I have never doubted for one minute your support for the RNLI
Good! So now we have poked at the straw man and set it aside, can we get back to the debate?
46% of London households have no car. So "half" as Khan claimed is simple reality, not showing he is "out of touch" as you claimed. The policy is popular in London as polls show. The policy is one which this government supported as recently as 2021. Expansion of ULEZ was a condition of the government bailing out TfL from its Covid bankruptcy.
So given that this government supports the policy, why is it now against it? Why is Harper writing to Starmer demanding that he withdraw the policy? Complaining that the Tories have failed to "fix Labour's Act" despite having 13 years to do it?
Could it be simple gross hypocrisy and political opportunism? They had no issue with the policy or the GLA Act until now. But with a political lifeboat issue to cling to they need to blame someone else.
My point about Khan's half of Londoners do not have cars is that outside of London that is not the case and indeed it now seems Sutton Lib dems have joined the opposition to Khan's implementation
The original ULEZ backed by Johnson for central London was sensible and has been effective , but rolling it out to outer London has caused a huge controversy, not least seeing Starmer who leads the Labour Party of which Khan is a member asking him to review it
Indeed it is difficult to find a Labour mp backing Khan and now we have Sutton Lib Dems lining up against the policy
You would be misreading the politics if you think this is just conservatives who are opposing it
It is the implementation rather than the ultimate aim that's at fault. There was only a year's notice to save up for a replacement car/van - not long enough for many of the people with a 7+ year old diesel. It isn't long enough for me, and I'm on a decent income, so it must be much harder for those on average incomes or families even with (say) 3 year's notice.
And public transport is inadequate for many of the journeys Outer Londoners make - it's OK inside Greater London but outside it disappears. A lot more should have been done to strengthen public transport in the next 5 miles or so outside Greater London.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
Can't you sell it for around £15k then? When I had to switch my car to be ULEZ compliant I sold it for a decent amount and put the money towards its replacement. Generally speaking you can buy a ULEZ compliant replacement for not much more than the car you are selling. And if the car you are selling is a real rust bucket then (a) they will give you £2k for it, (b) you're probably forking out money to keep it on the road and (c) it's probably about to fail its MOT anyway.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
Why not just sell the Merc then ?
Plenty of people need a car but aren't going to go anywhere near London.
You could sell it and get a 16 plate 308 Peugeot ULEZ compliant HDI with change left over.
The real issue judging by various Nick Ferrari phone ins seems to be getting a ULEZ compliant work van. They do seem to be like rocking horse shit.
When the ULEZ came in for this area our next door neighbours kept their old banger going for a couple of years before finally upgrading to a new (second hand) car recently.
A couple of comments on this:
- They don't drive that often so they calculated it was worthwhile paying the £12.50 for each day they did travel rather than shelling out for a new car. I expect a lot of people with non-compliant cars who occasionally venture into London will think this way - When they did buy the new car they were thrilled with it.
We forget how intoxicating researching and buying a replacement car can be. The magazine reviews, the test drives, the perusing of autotrader etc. It's good fun, and you get sucked in. That's true whether it's a brand new £50k SUV or a 2-careful-owners £6k runabout. Plenty of outer Londoners are going to be going on this journey: they might start off disgruntled at the ULEZ forcing them to ditch their old diesel but once they conclude they need to trade up, the fun of choosing a new car will start. And once they get their hands on a new motor with its fancy apple car play and parking sensors they won't look back.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
Can I just say that notwithstanding this morning comments I have never doubted for one minute your support for the RNLI
Good! So now we have poked at the straw man and set it aside, can we get back to the debate?
46% of London households have no car. So "half" as Khan claimed is simple reality, not showing he is "out of touch" as you claimed. The policy is popular in London as polls show. The policy is one which this government supported as recently as 2021. Expansion of ULEZ was a condition of the government bailing out TfL from its Covid bankruptcy.
So given that this government supports the policy, why is it now against it? Why is Harper writing to Starmer demanding that he withdraw the policy? Complaining that the Tories have failed to "fix Labour's Act" despite having 13 years to do it?
Could it be simple gross hypocrisy and political opportunism? They had no issue with the policy or the GLA Act until now. But with a political lifeboat issue to cling to they need to blame someone else.
My point about Khan's half of Londoners do not have cars is that outside of London that is not the case and indeed it now seems Sutton Lib dems have joined the opposition to Khan's implementation
The original ULEZ backed by Johnson for central London was sensible and has been effective , but rolling it out to outer London has caused a huge controversy, not least seeing Starmer who leads the Labour Party of which Khan is a member asking him to review it
Indeed it is difficult to find a Labour mp backing Khan and now we have Sutton Lib Dems lining up against the policy
You would be misreading the politics if you think this is just conservatives who are opposing it
It is the implementation rather than the ultimate aim that's at fault. There was only a year's notice to save up for a replacement car/van - not long enough for many of the people with a 7+ year old diesel. It isn't long enough for me, and I'm on a decent income, so it must be much harder for those on average incomes or families even with (say) 3 year's notice.
And public transport is inadequate for many of the journeys Outer Londoners make - it's OK inside Greater London but outside it disappears. A lot more should have been done to strengthen public transport in the next 5 miles or so outside Greater London.
I agree and in a few years it will have ceased to be a problem, but right now in a cost of living crisis it simply is an own goal by Khan
Having watched Strange New Worlds, I am now ploughing through Those Old Scientists. I know that the Shat developed a reputation for overacting in his old age, but My God he was awful back then as well. I haven't watched TOS for years...
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
If I may politely disagree (I know. Irony). Everybody who posts here is allowed to post here by definition. Those who are not allowed to post here are banned (@RodCrosby, @isam, @MrEd, @StuartDickson, @SeanT, @IshmaelZ, etc) but it is possible for a banned poster to return under a different name. The fact that you are here complaining about the site being an echo chamber is proof that it isn't.
The site does have its problems, thus
Posters have their hobbyhorses which they ride incessantly.
We are in a trough of few elections that the UK is interested in and as a result those who talk about politics are in the ascendancy, which inevitably brings disagreement.
The site ignores elections outside a narrow band: The Greek and Spanish elections 2023 were little commented upon. The Polish election is Oct 15 and I doubt we'll see an article, but we might for the 2023 US state elections in November
The site is not consistently moderated as the mods are three different people who have different opinions. And shoes.
The site is not consistent as the mood changes on time of day, with the overnight being more reflective than the day, and the evening being more aggressive (the site has a higher proportion of drinkers and out-and-out alcoholics who can get disorganised/shouty).
Brigading. Individuals can be ganged up on and isolated, with @HYUFD being the most egregious example of an isolatee
But these problems are solved by more people joining in, not less. The site will never be perfect (it is a site for wealthy boomers to talk about their politics) but I think in mid-2024 when the US and UK elections become more salient things will improve
Yes we are in a time of 'drift' at the moment. Nothing much is happening. We have just had one of the biggest events of all time (COVID) and we are still dealing with the economic and social aftermath.
It's not interesting politically at the moment. The government is drifting but LAB are not offering anything interesting and we are still a long way from the GE. Also long way to go to USA 2024.
So it does all feel a bit 'aimless' at the moment. But soon we will refocus as the GE comes into close view 👍
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Ours is just over £3,000 if webuyanycar.com is to be believed.
I have no idea what the electoral impact of ULEZ will be nor the extent to which it will impact people in the new areas adversely.
But I might suggest 2 measures to look at.
How much of a drop in traffic is there in the months following its introduction in the new areas (I suspect this will be small)
And how many charges/fines are issued for non compliant journeys. I suspect this will be larger than expected/modelled and will be a good rough indicator of the political fortunes of ULEZ.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
Why not just sell the Merc then ?
Plenty of people need a car but aren't going to go anywhere near London.
You could sell it and get a 16 plate 308 Peugeot ULEZ compliant HDI with change left over.
The real issue judging by various Nick Ferrari phone ins seems to be getting a ULEZ compliant work van. They do seem to be like rocking horse shit.
When the ULEZ came in for this area our next door neighbours kept their old banger going for a couple of years before finally upgrading to a new (second hand) car recently.
A couple of comments on this:
- They don't drive that often so they calculated it was worthwhile paying the £12.50 for each day they did travel rather than shelling out for a new car. I expect a lot of people with non-compliant cars who occasionally venture into London will think this way - When they did buy the new car they were thrilled with it.
We forget how intoxicating researching and buying a replacement car can be. The magazine reviews, the test drives, the perusing of autotrader etc. It's good fun, and you get sucked in. That's true whether it's a brand new £50k SUV or a 2-careful-owners £6k runabout. Plenty of outer Londoners are going to be going on this journey: they might start off disgruntled at the ULEZ forcing them to ditch their old diesel but once they conclude they need to trade up, the fun of choosing a new car will start. And once they get their hands on a new motor with its fancy apple car play and parking sensors they won't look back.
This is exactly the story with a friend of mine. Ulez has given him the perfect reason to upgrade his car, a 20 year-old diesel. His missus would never have allowed it otherwise.
Having watched Strange New Worlds, I am now ploughing through Those Old Scientists. I know that the Shat developed a reputation for overacting in his old age, but My God he was awful back then as well. I haven't watched TOS for years...
Mind you, that scene is a ham actor playing someone who is ham acting.
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain went to Birmingham and Lord Bute went to Leiden I believe too
Plus Bonar Law went to Glasgow and a few others went to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Birmingham as well as Oxbridge
Did he? When?
My understanding is he attended some extra mural lectures as a member of the public but from the age of 16 was apprenticed to the family business.
Network Rail has triggered a row with its staff by refusing to pay bonuses to union members who took part in strikes earlier this year.
Up to 20,000 members of the RMT staged walkouts over eight months in a dispute over pay and conditions.
The dispute ended in March when union members voted to accept a 9pc pay rise, with more going to lower paid staff.
However, RMT said that Network Rail has refused to pay bonuses to any staff who took part in the strikes.
“The decision to exclude trade unionists from this bonus scheme is disgraceful and is understandably causing significant consternation among members,” RMT general secretary Mick Lynch wrote in an email seen by the Financial Times.
Network Rail confirmed the decision and said it had warned employees they would not receive a bonus if they went on strike.
A spokesman said: “Our position was made very clear - any discretionary payments would focus on those who continued to support rail services during industrial action.”
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
If I may politely disagree (I know. Irony). Everybody who posts here is allowed to post here by definition. Those who are not allowed to post here are banned (@RodCrosby, @isam, @MrEd, @StuartDickson, @SeanT, @IshmaelZ, etc) but it is possible for a banned poster to return under a different name. The fact that you are here complaining about the site being an echo chamber is proof that it isn't.
The site does have its problems, thus
Posters have their hobbyhorses which they ride incessantly.
We are in a trough of few elections that the UK is interested in and as a result those who talk about politics are in the ascendancy, which inevitably brings disagreement.
The site ignores elections outside a narrow band: The Greek and Spanish elections 2023 were little commented upon. The Polish election is Oct 15 and I doubt we'll see an article, but we might for the 2023 US state elections in November
The site is not consistently moderated as the mods are three different people who have different opinions. And shoes.
The site is not consistent as the mood changes on time of day, with the overnight being more reflective than the day, and the evening being more aggressive (the site has a higher proportion of drinkers and out-and-out alcoholics who can get disorganised/shouty).
Brigading. Individuals can be ganged up on and isolated, with @HYUFD being the most egregious example of an isolatee
But these problems are solved by more people joining in, not less. The site will never be perfect (it is a site for wealthy boomers to talk about their politics) but I think in mid-2024 when the US and UK elections become more salient things will improve
I think one of the difficulties is that in the UK we face a fascinating and tricky question about what politics should look like. Big issues including Brexit, Covid, Climate change and increasing war, authoritarianism and other external challenge have upended traditional positions.
The centre right has simply failed to convince. Look at the polls. If the centre left had been in power from 2010 they would be facing the same problems, as we shall see after 2024.
While there is endless and dull discussion about individual small matters (ULEZ etc) the big picture failure is to locate within the parties two or three consistent and principled positions which provide coherent alternative visions of the next decades.
In a safety first society the majority will for now converge on a position in which it is mostly the job of government to solve issues to which no solution can be discerned - a sort of centre leftism.
This does not make for exciting politics, or indeed PB.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Ours is just over £3,000 if webuyanycar.com is to be believed.
It isn’t. They quote low and screw you lower. Always add at least 50% to the price they quote, and sell elsewhere.
I actually had them quote a price for a mere 25% of the price I eventually got for it.
Having watched Strange New Worlds, I am now ploughing through Those Old Scientists. I know that the Shat developed a reputation for overacting in his old age, but My God he was awful back then as well. I haven't watched TOS for years...
Oddly enough, I've just finished watching "Airplane 2, The Sequel", which Shatner has a cameo in. He's quite funny in that - although it wasn't exactly a role that required good acting...
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Erm, the problem as I see it with Leon's posts are nothing to do with his anti-woke agenda. It's because he is constantly attention seeking, highly aggressive and nasty to people with whom he disagrees (especially after he's been at the bottle), and worst of all filling it up with utterly irrelevant posts or photos about his latest travel.
On your broader point ...
Leon adds a lot of value. He's spotted really interesting stuff early on, on AI, aliens, lab leak hypothesis etc, which I would have otherwise missed. His warnings about 'woke' excesses were also prescient, even if they were futile.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
A working class resident of Havering or Bexley or Hillingdon for example is more likely to own a car than even a high earner in central London unless they are on benefits or a really low income
I'm not even sure that's true but if you have evidence that it is I'd love to see it.
Can't provide any evidence off the top of my head - sorry - but what HYUFD says in this case feels right to me, and also echoes what I believe is the case in Greater Manchester.
It's hard to find data breaking down car ownership by Borough and by income at the same time. By income, car ownership rises monotonically with income, from 22% for those on incomes <£5k to 74% for those on incomes >£100k. By Borough, ownership rises from 25% in the City of London and 31% in Tower Hamlets to 76% in Bexley and 78% in Kingston upon Thames. Whether a guy on £400k living in RBKC (Borough average 35%) is more or less likely to have a car than a guy on £22k (income average 46%) I have no idea. My guess is they'd both probably have a car.
Having watched Strange New Worlds, I am now ploughing through Those Old Scientists. I know that the Shat developed a reputation for overacting in his old age, but My God he was awful back then as well. I haven't watched TOS for years...
Oddly enough, I've just finished watching "Airplane 2, The Sequel", which Shatner has a cameo in. He's quite funny in that - although it wasn't exactly a role that required good acting...
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
But you have to relatively rich to spend £15,000 on a Merc estate, or to have bought one new 10 years ago. So yes, it will harm some people, but it won't be the poor (who can't afford cars) or the not-quite-so-poor (who can't afford a Merc estate).
Plenty of 10-yr old diesels in the £5-8k band. What do you do with those?
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
Can't you sell it for around £15k then? When I had to switch my car to be ULEZ compliant I sold it for a decent amount and put the money towards its replacement. Generally speaking you can buy a ULEZ compliant replacement for not much more than the car you are selling. And if the car you are selling is a real rust bucket then (a) they will give you £2k for it, (b) you're probably forking out money to keep it on the road and (c) it's probably about to fail its MOT anyway.
Yes as mentioned, that was an example of a car now worthless to a demographic. It is much more pertinent in the sub-£10k band - again thousands upon thousands of those on auto trader.
Plus the govt says you must sell your nice Merc and buy a Peugeot. Huzzah.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Network Rail has triggered a row with its staff by refusing to pay bonuses to union members who took part in strikes earlier this year.
Up to 20,000 members of the RMT staged walkouts over eight months in a dispute over pay and conditions.
The dispute ended in March when union members voted to accept a 9pc pay rise, with more going to lower paid staff.
However, RMT said that Network Rail has refused to pay bonuses to any staff who took part in the strikes.
“The decision to exclude trade unionists from this bonus scheme is disgraceful and is understandably causing significant consternation among members,” RMT general secretary Mick Lynch wrote in an email seen by the Financial Times.
Network Rail confirmed the decision and said it had warned employees they would not receive a bonus if they went on strike.
A spokesman said: “Our position was made very clear - any discretionary payments would focus on those who continued to support rail services during industrial action.”
I think this is quite right. You have a right to withdraw your labour, a company has a right to pay performance and attendance related bonuses on performance and attendance.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Ours is just over £3,000 if webuyanycar.com is to be believed.
It isn’t. They quote low and screw you lower. Always add at least 50% to the price they quote, and sell elsewhere.
I actually had them quote a price for a mere 25% of the price I eventually got for it.
Interesting. Well, prior to doing the online quote, I asked *in person* at our local car dealership, and they came up with almost exactly the same figure!
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
Please state the 'other side' of this story; one that paints Rubiales' actions in a positive light.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Ours is just over £3,000 if webuyanycar.com is to be believed.
It isn’t. They quote low and screw you lower. Always add at least 50% to the price they quote, and sell elsewhere.
I actually had them quote a price for a mere 25% of the price I eventually got for it.
Interesting. Well, prior to doing the online quote, I asked *in person* at our local car dealership, and they came up with almost exactly the same figure!
Probably on the part exchange basis? That always knocks a fair bit off.
Edit - also remember, that might be the actual price they would offer. The Stupid Adverts Website will find ways to knock a fair amount off. 'Aha! There is a thread missing from the cover underneath the front passenger seat, more than 0.5mm in length! Take off £200.'
(Maybe I'm jaundiced, but I'd trust Boris Johnson ahead of that lot.)
Having watched Strange New Worlds, I am now ploughing through Those Old Scientists. I know that the Shat developed a reputation for overacting in his old age, but My God he was awful back then as well. I haven't watched TOS for years...
What I love about extra-terrestrials is their commitment to the earthling aesthetic of the time. If an alien built a house in your street, it would be in character with neighbouring properties and sensitive to the area's historical context.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
The BBC is not being one-sided in its coverage; it has covered the responses from Rubiales and the Spanish FA.
What it is guilty of is excessive coverage of what is, in the scheme of things, a medium-level foreign domestic story. It is not the sort of issue that should be leading the news.
The Three Hundreds of Chiltern. Lovely part of the world - we were visiting our daughter there last weekend. And great archaic parliamentary procedure for an MP's resignation, almost designed to flummox Johnny Foreigner let alone the natives
Network Rail has triggered a row with its staff by refusing to pay bonuses to union members who took part in strikes earlier this year.
Up to 20,000 members of the RMT staged walkouts over eight months in a dispute over pay and conditions.
The dispute ended in March when union members voted to accept a 9pc pay rise, with more going to lower paid staff.
However, RMT said that Network Rail has refused to pay bonuses to any staff who took part in the strikes.
“The decision to exclude trade unionists from this bonus scheme is disgraceful and is understandably causing significant consternation among members,” RMT general secretary Mick Lynch wrote in an email seen by the Financial Times.
Network Rail confirmed the decision and said it had warned employees they would not receive a bonus if they went on strike.
A spokesman said: “Our position was made very clear - any discretionary payments would focus on those who continued to support rail services during industrial action.”
I think this is quite right. You have a right to withdraw your labour, a company has a right to pay performance and attendance related bonuses on performance and attendance.
Am I the only one who finds the most disturbing thing about this is the implication bonuses should be paid automatically to everyone?
What I love about extra-terrestrials is their commitment to the earthling aesthetic of the time. If an alien built a house in your street, it would be in character with neighbouring properties and sensitive to the area's historical context.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
My car (13 years old, compliant FYI but I never drive to London anyway) is worth less than £2000.
The issue with replacing it, and why I still drive it, is that its reliable and the replacement cost to get a newer vehicle would be much, much more than £2,000.
If your income is going to housing and other essential costs, then "just buy a new vehicle" isn't a solution if the old one is what you have, and what you need.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Ours is just over £3,000 if webuyanycar.com is to be believed.
It isn’t. They quote low and screw you lower. Always add at least 50% to the price they quote, and sell elsewhere.
I actually had them quote a price for a mere 25% of the price I eventually got for it.
Interesting. Well, prior to doing the online quote, I asked *in person* at our local car dealership, and they came up with almost exactly the same figure!
Probably on the part exchange basis? That always knocks a fair bit off.
Edit - also remember, that might be the actual price they would offer. The Stupid Adverts Website will find ways to knock a fair amount off. 'Aha! There is a thread missing from the cover underneath the front passenger seat, more than 0.5mm in length! Take off £200.'
(Maybe I'm jaundiced, but I'd trust Boris Johnson ahead of that lot.)
Yeah, alas, it was as part exchange for one of their vehicles!
Having watched Strange New Worlds, I am now ploughing through Those Old Scientists. I know that the Shat developed a reputation for overacting in his old age, but My God he was awful back then as well. I haven't watched TOS for years...
My favourite show with Shatner was Boston Legal, where he played a famous but now elderly lawyer struggling with the onset of dementia (or "mad cow"). Thought he played that brilliantly, great comedy most of the times but also handled the dementia storylines with great sensitivity and class - something that many struggle in real life with but is rarely portrayed on TV.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Ours is just over £3,000 if webuyanycar.com is to be believed.
It isn’t. They quote low and screw you lower. Always add at least 50% to the price they quote, and sell elsewhere.
I actually had them quote a price for a mere 25% of the price I eventually got for it.
Interesting. Well, prior to doing the online quote, I asked *in person* at our local car dealership, and they came up with almost exactly the same figure!
Probably on the part exchange basis? That always knocks a fair bit off.
Edit - also remember, that might be the actual price they would offer. The Stupid Adverts Website will find ways to knock a fair amount off. 'Aha! There is a thread missing from the cover underneath the front passenger seat, more than 0.5mm in length! Take off £200.'
(Maybe I'm jaundiced, but I'd trust Boris Johnson ahead of that lot.)
Yeah, alas, it was as part exchange for one of their vehicles!
When I sold my car I used Motorway. That actually worked quite well. I got a higher price than I had expected and they didn't knock anything off despite some damage that would need correcting. Also, they collected. (God knows how they ever made a profit on the resale given the cost of trains, taxis, getting it to Sheffield and then fixing the couple of minor issues, but that was their problem not mine.)
That ended up being 30% more than WBAC's initial quote, probably 50% more in the real world.
However, I've heard other people haven't had such good experiences with them.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
My car (13 years old, compliant FYI but I never drive to London anyway) is worth less than £2000.
The issue with replacing it, and why I still drive it, is that its reliable and the replacement cost to get a newer vehicle would be much, much more than £2,000.
If your income is going to housing and other essential costs, then "just buy a new vehicle" isn't a solution if the old one is what you have, and what you need.
Crazy talk. We are hearing from our totally representative PB demographic what super fun it is to buy a new car once her indoors gets her head round it.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
I don't think it's a bad thing that we have very few professional edgelords here on PB. This Spanish story is one where you're likely to get consensus in all but the most 4-chan of forums. It's not particularly controversial. Likewise anti-vaxxers and Russian trolls get short shrift.
What the Spanish story does show, yet again, is that if someone in power decides they're going to dig in and double down on something, no hint of regret or apology, they can hang on for a long time and cause a fair bit of damage. And inevitably bring some people with them no matter what the facts say. It's the Trump factor.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
If I may politely disagree (I know. Irony). Everybody who posts here is allowed to post here by definition. Those who are not allowed to post here are banned (@RodCrosby, @isam, @MrEd, @StuartDickson, @SeanT, @IshmaelZ, etc) but it is possible for a banned poster to return under a different name. The fact that you are here complaining about the site being an echo chamber is proof that it isn't.
The site does have its problems, thus
Posters have their hobbyhorses which they ride incessantly.
We are in a trough of few elections that the UK is interested in and as a result those who talk about politics are in the ascendancy, which inevitably brings disagreement.
The site ignores elections outside a narrow band: The Greek and Spanish elections 2023 were little commented upon. The Polish election is Oct 15 and I doubt we'll see an article, but we might for the 2023 US state elections in November
The site is not consistently moderated as the mods are three different people who have different opinions. And shoes.
The site is not consistent as the mood changes on time of day, with the overnight being more reflective than the day, and the evening being more aggressive (the site has a higher proportion of drinkers and out-and-out alcoholics who can get disorganised/shouty).
Brigading. Individuals can be ganged up on and isolated, with @HYUFD being the most egregious example of an isolatee
But these problems are solved by more people joining in, not less. The site will never be perfect (it is a site for wealthy boomers to talk about their politics) but I think in mid-2024 when the US and UK elections become more salient things will improve
The site has drifted a bit to the left in the time that I've been reading it. I don't know why that is, but I suspect that the unpopularity of the current right wing government and the disappointing reality of the right's signature policy (Brexit) must be factors. I would presume both make it harder for someone of a right wing persuasion to show up here and express their opinion with a sense of pride or purpose. As far as I know, people who have been banned have been banished not for expressing right wing views but for the manner of their engagement. It sometimes seems to me that there is a greater preponderance of anger management kinds of issues among right wing posters on here. Angry left wing types don't seem to want to be on here, on the left it's mostly centrist dads who don't tend to post drunken rants, indulge in personal invective or make heavy use of capital letters.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
My car (13 years old, compliant FYI but I never drive to London anyway) is worth less than £2000.
The issue with replacing it, and why I still drive it, is that its reliable and the replacement cost to get a newer vehicle would be much, much more than £2,000.
If your income is going to housing and other essential costs, then "just buy a new vehicle" isn't a solution if the old one is what you have, and what you need.
Crazy talk. We are hearing from our totally representative PB demographic what super fun it is to buy a new car once her indoors gets her head round it.
If you can afford a new car, then of course its super fun. Not everyone has blank cheques to afford everything though.
I really want an electric car, but they are just too expensive currently and all my income has gone into the house lately. Once prices come down, and I can save a bit more, then I look forward to getting a new car, but its not on the horizon yet - and its not like my old car is depreciating any further for so long as its reliable and running around.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
Please state the 'other side' of this story; one that paints Rubiales' actions in a positive light.
Story selection is key to how bias works. There is no big time defence of Rubiales, though it would be quite proper to see this episode as a real misjudgement and a genuine mistake - one which many men have made and generally get forgiven.
The problem is overreach. The BBC, if its concerns were real and not confected, would focus 100 times more on the use of rape, humiliation and sexual assault in actual wars actually happening now (Sudan for example). This is relatively (though not absolutely) trivial.
The BBC leaves us with the sense that some victims matter more than others, especially if they are white and well known and there is good footage of what occurred.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Ours is just over £3,000 if webuyanycar.com is to be believed.
It isn’t. They quote low and screw you lower. Always add at least 50% to the price they quote, and sell elsewhere.
I actually had them quote a price for a mere 25% of the price I eventually got for it.
What WBAC have got going for them is data. Because they are owned by BCA they can predict with very high confidence what any particular car will sell for at auction with the price controlled for vehicle condition. The WBAC offer is the auction price plus a healthy margin plus their overheads. That's it. The WBAC agent keeps a very narrow amount up their sleeve (a few hundred quid) that they will throw in if the seller kicks off.
You probably can get more elsewhere but at WBAC you're getting a zero effort, zero friction transaction and that is worth a lot of money to some people. I have sold cars at WBAC (and also appraised 911s for them) and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. You've just got to go in with your eyes open and know what you're getting.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
My car (13 years old, compliant FYI but I never drive to London anyway) is worth less than £2000.
The issue with replacing it, and why I still drive it, is that its reliable and the replacement cost to get a newer vehicle would be much, much more than £2,000.
If your income is going to housing and other essential costs, then "just buy a new vehicle" isn't a solution if the old one is what you have, and what you need.
Crazy talk. We are hearing from our totally representative PB demographic what super fun it is to buy a new car once her indoors gets her head round it.
This is a totally concocted controversy, for which congratulations to the Tories. As evidenced by the fact that when the ULEZ was introduced for inner London there was barely a squeak. Because those weren't marginal constituencies of interest to the government.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
If I may politely disagree (I know. Irony). Everybody who posts here is allowed to post here by definition. Those who are not allowed to post here are banned (@RodCrosby, @isam, @MrEd, @StuartDickson, @SeanT, @IshmaelZ, etc) but it is possible for a banned poster to return under a different name. The fact that you are here complaining about the site being an echo chamber is proof that it isn't.
The site does have its problems, thus
Posters have their hobbyhorses which they ride incessantly.
We are in a trough of few elections that the UK is interested in and as a result those who talk about politics are in the ascendancy, which inevitably brings disagreement.
The site ignores elections outside a narrow band: The Greek and Spanish elections 2023 were little commented upon. The Polish election is Oct 15 and I doubt we'll see an article, but we might for the 2023 US state elections in November
The site is not consistently moderated as the mods are three different people who have different opinions. And shoes.
The site is not consistent as the mood changes on time of day, with the overnight being more reflective than the day, and the evening being more aggressive (the site has a higher proportion of drinkers and out-and-out alcoholics who can get disorganised/shouty).
Brigading. Individuals can be ganged up on and isolated, with @HYUFD being the most egregious example of an isolatee
But these problems are solved by more people joining in, not less. The site will never be perfect (it is a site for wealthy boomers to talk about their politics) but I think in mid-2024 when the US and UK elections become more salient things will improve
The site has drifted a bit to the left in the time that I've been reading it. I don't know why that is, but I suspect that the unpopularity of the current right wing government and the disappointing reality of the right's signature policy (Brexit) must be factors. I would presume both make it harder for someone of a right wing persuasion to show up here and express their opinion with a sense of pride or purpose. As far as I know, people who have been banned have been banished not for expressing right wing views but for the manner of their engagement. It sometimes seems to me that there is a greater preponderance of anger management kinds of issues among right wing posters on here. Angry left wing types don't seem to want to be on here, on the left it's mostly centrist dads who don't tend to post drunken rants, indulge in personal invective or make heavy use of capital letters.
16 years ago when I first started posting the site was frequently called 'a right wing echo chamber' and I was definitely on the political right. Heck, I even voted for Michael Howard (admittedly primarily to annoy the then Labour candidate, Alun Michael, who makes Jacob Rees-Mogg look like a decent, intelligent human being).
Now I keep being accused of being left-liberal.
Why? Because my views have changed, largely as the right wing in this country has disappeared down not so much a rabbit hole as an entire warren, while Labour and the left seem to have got at least some of their own populist madness out of their system.
Admittedly, Kinabalu once called me a 'highly partisan raging centrist' so I suppose I was most susceptible to that swing.
I might be too late for the @Leon@Richard_Tyndall discussion about Graham Hancock - but I remember first reading Fingerprints of the Gods and was first amazed - then went back and read it two or three more times and started to see the cracks. He does make some good points but maybe half of his assertions just dont stand up to the slightest scrutiny. But a good yarn.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
Please state the 'other side' of this story; one that paints Rubiales' actions in a positive light.
Story selection is key to how bias works. There is no big time defence of Rubiales, though it would be quite proper to see this episode as a real misjudgement and a genuine mistake - one which many men have made and generally get forgiven.
The problem is overreach. The BBC, if its concerns were real and not confected, would focus 100 times more on the use of rape, humiliation and sexual assault in actual wars actually happening now (Sudan for example). This is relatively (though not absolutely) trivial.
The BBC leaves us with the sense that some victims matter more than others, especially if they are white and well known and there is good footage of what occurred.
But isn't it exactly the reverse?
When such high profile cases occur, if they are not highlighted and played for all they are worth then lots of misogynistic idiots think that such behaviour is indeed acceptable. After all if it is okay for the head of the Spanish FA to grope and suck the face of an international footballer in front of the cameras then surely it is okay for some office boss to do the same to his secretary in an insurance company in Slough.
High profile examples matter, not because of the status of the victim but because of the status of the perpetrator.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
Please state the 'other side' of this story; one that paints Rubiales' actions in a positive light.
There isn't any way of painting his actions in a positive light and I would agree that his response has been a PR disaster. But I think he is essentially saying that it was consensual. I'd suggest that he deserves a fair hearing - particularly from the BBC - as would anyone in this position.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
Please state the 'other side' of this story; one that paints Rubiales' actions in a positive light.
There isn't any way of painting his actions in a positive light and I would agree that his response has been a PR disaster. But I think he is essentially saying that it was consensual. I'd suggest that he deserves a fair hearing - particularly from the BBC - as would anyone in this position.
That's fair enough. But do you think his actions and words *after* the event help or harm his cause?
Also: 'consensual' needs to be said by both sides, not just one, and I understand she is saying that it was not. Did it look consensual to you?
There are also other issues, as Richard states below. I find it hard to see how the BBC could be less one-sided in this case: Rubiales did wrong, and his later words and actions have made matters far worse for him.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
Please state the 'other side' of this story; one that paints Rubiales' actions in a positive light.
Story selection is key to how bias works. There is no big time defence of Rubiales, though it would be quite proper to see this episode as a real misjudgement and a genuine mistake - one which many men have made and generally get forgiven.
The problem is overreach. The BBC, if its concerns were real and not confected, would focus 100 times more on the use of rape, humiliation and sexual assault in actual wars actually happening now (Sudan for example). This is relatively (though not absolutely) trivial.
The BBC leaves us with the sense that some victims matter more than others, especially if they are white and well known and there is good footage of what occurred.
'though it would be quite proper to see this episode as a real misjudgement and a genuine mistake'
Wouldn't that involve Rubiales indicating that he'd misjudged the situation and made a genuine mistake? Instead he seems to be doubling down, as so many of these guys do. Much as eg the BBC leaves me cold, I don't think it's their job to construct a case for the defence when the Spanish snogger himself isn't bothering.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
Some examples of what you mean? The clearest example I can think of of an "unacceptable" (if you mean swiftly condemned) opinion on here is someone suggesting something like the West should force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and negotiated peace. But I'm not sure that is an example of progressive groupthink.
I think rather it's about the widely held view that minor assaults on women are not something to be taken notice of.
Darkage is right to say that there's a strong consensus here against that viewpoint. But it's wrong to say I don't understand that viewpoint, when I argue against it. I just think it's quite wrong.
On this you overlooked my point (that the BBC was being one sided in its coverage of a story which I thought was inappropriate given its status as a public service broadcaster) and went on to have a different discussion where you agreed with each other that the perspective offered by the BBC is correct. It is quite a good example of my point about being in a progressive echo chamber.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
The BBC is not being one-sided in its coverage; it has covered the responses from Rubiales and the Spanish FA.
What it is guilty of is excessive coverage of what is, in the scheme of things, a medium-level foreign domestic story. It is not the sort of issue that should be leading the news.
It's absolute core Wokery though, and is just the sort of the thing the BBC and its staff thinks it should be campaigning on, which is why it's stayed up for so long.
Comments
example is more likely to own a car than even a high earner in central London unless they are on benefits or a really low income
So huge numbers of people around the country live in fear of their car being in an accident and written off by the insurers for some fairly minor damage because the value they would get for it would go nowhere towards buying a replacement.
The original ULEZ backed by Johnson for central London was sensible and has been effective , but rolling it out to outer London has caused a huge controversy, not least seeing Starmer who leads the Labour Party of which Khan is a member asking him to review it
Indeed it is difficult to find a Labour mp backing Khan and now we have Sutton Lib Dems lining up against the policy
You would be misreading the politics if you think this is just conservatives who are opposing it
The good news for Rishi from R&W is that their figure for Reform has risen by a similar amount in the same timeframe. Does that mean there's a number of former conservative voters who spent 2022 discombobulated at the self-destruction of their party but weren't ready to jump ship yet, who are now convinced Rishi won't stop the boats and are claiming they're going to go out and vote Reform? I wouldn't be surprised. And guess what: like the Labour lefties swearing blind they'll vote Green in protest at Tory Starmer before holding their noses at the last minute, once these Reform minded hard-men reach the polling booth they'll mostly meekly tuck their tails between their legs and put a cross in the Conservative box.
Just plugging the numbers into Autotrader comes up with £4,000
The site does have its problems, thus
- Posters have their hobbyhorses which they ride incessantly.
- We are in a trough of few elections that the UK is interested in and as a result those who talk about politics are in the ascendancy, which inevitably brings disagreement.
- The site ignores elections outside a narrow band: The Greek and Spanish elections 2023 were little commented upon. The Polish election is Oct 15 and I doubt we'll see an article, but we might for the 2023 US state elections in November
- The site is not consistently moderated as the mods are three different people who have different opinions. And shoes.
- The site is not consistent as the mood changes on time of day, with the overnight being more reflective than the day, and the evening being more aggressive (the site has a higher proportion of drinkers and out-and-out alcoholics who can get disorganised/shouty).
- Brigading. Individuals can be ganged up on and isolated, with @HYUFD being the most egregious example of an isolatee
But these problems are solved by more people joining in, not less. The site will never be perfect (it is a site for wealthy boomers to talk about their politics) but I think in mid-2024 when the US and UK elections become more salient things will improveAnd public transport is inadequate for many of the journeys Outer Londoners make - it's OK inside Greater London but outside it disappears. A lot more should have been done to strengthen public transport in the next 5 miles or so outside Greater London.
A couple of comments on this:
- They don't drive that often so they calculated it was worthwhile paying the £12.50 for each day they did travel rather than shelling out for a new car. I expect a lot of people with non-compliant cars who occasionally venture into London will think this way
- When they did buy the new car they were thrilled with it.
We forget how intoxicating researching and buying a replacement car can be. The magazine reviews, the test drives, the perusing of autotrader etc. It's good fun, and you get sucked in. That's true whether it's a brand new £50k SUV or a 2-careful-owners £6k runabout. Plenty of outer Londoners are going to be going on this journey: they might start off disgruntled at the ULEZ forcing them to ditch their old diesel but once they conclude they need to trade up, the fun of choosing a new car will start. And once they get their hands on a new motor with its fancy apple car play and parking sensors they won't look back.
It's not interesting politically at the moment. The government is drifting but LAB are not offering anything interesting and we are still a long way from the GE. Also long way to go to USA 2024.
So it does all feel a bit 'aimless' at the moment. But soon we will refocus as the GE comes into close view 👍
But I might suggest 2 measures to look at.
How much of a drop in traffic is there in the months following its introduction in the new areas (I suspect this will be small)
And how many charges/fines are issued for non compliant journeys. I suspect this will be larger than expected/modelled and will be a good rough indicator of the political fortunes of ULEZ.
That's a lot of ham.
Whoever compiled it was exaggerating.
Network Rail has triggered a row with its staff by refusing to pay bonuses to union members who took part in strikes earlier this year.
Up to 20,000 members of the RMT staged walkouts over eight months in a dispute over pay and conditions.
The dispute ended in March when union members voted to accept a 9pc pay rise, with more going to lower paid staff.
However, RMT said that Network Rail has refused to pay bonuses to any staff who took part in the strikes.
“The decision to exclude trade unionists from this bonus scheme is disgraceful and is understandably causing significant consternation among members,” RMT general secretary Mick Lynch wrote in an email seen by the Financial Times.
Network Rail confirmed the decision and said it had warned employees they would not receive a bonus if they went on strike.
A spokesman said: “Our position was made very clear - any discretionary payments would focus on those who continued to support rail services during industrial action.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/29/ftse-100-markets-news-network-rail-strikes-food-inflation/
Who are these idiots who have waited until today to check their reg?
The centre right has simply failed to convince. Look at the polls. If the centre left had been in power from 2010 they would be facing the same problems, as we shall see after 2024.
While there is endless and dull discussion about individual small matters (ULEZ etc) the big picture failure is to locate within the parties two or three consistent and principled positions which provide coherent alternative visions of the next decades.
In a safety first society the majority will for now converge on a position in which it is mostly the job of government to solve issues to which no solution can be discerned - a sort of centre leftism.
This does not make for exciting politics, or indeed PB.
Where are Attlee and Mrs T when you need them?
I actually had them quote a price for a mere 25% of the price I eventually got for it.
Plus the govt says you must sell your nice Merc and buy a Peugeot. Huzzah.
https://twitter.com/lukemcgee/status/1696428021085811053
And I hadn't realised just how big his tush is, either.
Anyway... on with the rest of the day.
Edit - also remember, that might be the actual price they would offer. The Stupid Adverts Website will find ways to knock a fair amount off. 'Aha! There is a thread missing from the cover underneath the front passenger seat, more than 0.5mm in length! Take off £200.'
(Maybe I'm jaundiced, but I'd trust Boris Johnson ahead of that lot.)
What it is guilty of is excessive coverage of what is, in the scheme of things, a medium-level foreign domestic story. It is not the sort of issue that should be leading the news.
The issue with replacing it, and why I still drive it, is that its reliable and the replacement cost to get a newer vehicle would be much, much more than £2,000.
If your income is going to housing and other essential costs, then "just buy a new vehicle" isn't a solution if the old one is what you have, and what you need.
That ended up being 30% more than WBAC's initial quote, probably 50% more in the real world.
However, I've heard other people haven't had such good experiences with them.
What the Spanish story does show, yet again, is that if someone in power decides they're going to dig in and double down on something, no hint of regret or apology, they can hang on for a long time and cause a fair bit of damage. And inevitably bring some people with them no matter what the facts say. It's the Trump factor.
I really want an electric car, but they are just too expensive currently and all my income has gone into the house lately. Once prices come down, and I can save a bit more, then I look forward to getting a new car, but its not on the horizon yet - and its not like my old car is depreciating any further for so long as its reliable and running around.
NEW THREAD FOLKS
The problem is overreach. The BBC, if its concerns were real and not confected, would focus 100 times more on the use of rape, humiliation and sexual assault in actual wars actually happening now (Sudan for example). This is relatively (though not absolutely) trivial.
The BBC leaves us with the sense that some victims matter more than others, especially if they are white and well known and there is good footage of what occurred.
You probably can get more elsewhere but at WBAC you're getting a zero effort, zero friction transaction and that is worth a lot of money to some people. I have sold cars at WBAC (and also appraised 911s for them) and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. You've just got to go in with your eyes open and know what you're getting.
Now I keep being accused of being left-liberal.
Why? Because my views have changed, largely as the right wing in this country has disappeared down not so much a rabbit hole as an entire warren, while Labour and the left seem to have got at least some of their own populist madness out of their system.
Admittedly, Kinabalu once called me a 'highly partisan raging centrist' so I suppose I was most susceptible to that swing.
When such high profile cases occur, if they are not highlighted and played for all they are worth then lots of misogynistic idiots think that such behaviour is indeed acceptable. After all if it is okay for the head of the Spanish FA to grope and suck the face of an international footballer in front of the cameras then surely it is okay for some office boss to do the same to his secretary in an insurance company in Slough.
High profile examples matter, not because of the status of the victim but because of the status of the perpetrator.
Also: 'consensual' needs to be said by both sides, not just one, and I understand she is saying that it was not. Did it look consensual to you?
There are also other issues, as Richard states below. I find it hard to see how the BBC could be less one-sided in this case: Rubiales did wrong, and his later words and actions have made matters far worse for him.
Wouldn't that involve Rubiales indicating that he'd misjudged the situation and made a genuine mistake? Instead he seems to be doubling down, as so many of these guys do. Much as eg the BBC leaves me cold, I don't think it's their job to construct a case for the defence when the Spanish snogger himself isn't bothering.