Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

So far this year voting intentions barely moved – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited September 2023 in General
imageSo far this year voting intentions barely moved – politicalbetting.com

Each month David Cowling, ITN’s former Head of Political Research, issues his polling averages table and as can be seen seen it is hard to discern any real change.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    edited September 2023
    I like this header.

    What leaps out is the Conservatives really need to consider an April or early May election. The summers and Autumns rub their pledges all up the wrong way.

    And Mike reiterates again, Sunak to be challenged. Sunak’s dry right wing platform, very much the party of privilege not aspiration, is a problem. They need to tac to the centre, and to do that credibly they will need fresh voices and faces.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,326
    How does the table in this header compare to the similar ones put in the comments by a PBer whose name I forget?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    edited September 2023
    viewcode said:

    How does the table in this header compare to the similar ones put in the comments by a PBer whose name I forget?

    It’s a good point, if people exclude different pollsters from their calculation, their version of average might differ slightly - I wouldn’t use the messed up Opinium in any averaging, even though it it is helpfully metronomic.

    Some pollsters stick to timetable, whilst others are random, we havn’t had what was a monthly Kantor for a very long time - if I was doing one I would stick to a set of polls published weekly and monthly, not include every poll in the month.

    Another issue is rounding. If Tories were 26.4, this shows as 26, whilst if Labour was 44.6, it shows as 45?

    Pollingreport have a current average measurement as live on their site, they currently have LAB 45.7%
    CON 27%, LIB DEM 11%
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    The problem with any successful challenge to Sunak, from the POV of improving Tory chances, is that it's pretty unlikely to result in a 'tack to the centre'.
    It's not coincidental that those most enthusiastic for yet another PM change are of the Luckguy tendency.

    Someone like Mordaunt might just be able to get past the weird selectorate, I suppose.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    Ramaswamy is an utter lunatic (if his babblings are meant to be taken even slightly seriously).

    At the same time as arguing the dangers to the US from Russia and China can be reduced by the US abandoning its western allies, he seems to want to go to war with his immediate neighbours.

    A ‘fevered hallucination’: Latin America meets Vivek Ramaswamy
    The Republican candidate wants to prioritize the Western Hemisphere, but in ways that worry its leaders.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/03/latin-america-vivek-ramaswamy-00113723
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,621
    edited September 2023
    "Perhaps this is why voting intention polls are getting so little attention and why hardly anybody talks about “the polls”."

    Maybe people have finally twigged that VI polls are terrible predictors of the next general election result until 3-6 months out?

    Probably not, for some reason this fact never seems to register.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    Good morning all. So begins the final Parliament of this Conservative Government.

    Jan 25 would be political suicide so the election will be in 2024. Either Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October).

    I predict that the polls will barely change from now until polling day. People's minds are largely made up. The die is cast.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    I can't see how that is possible without reports.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    I can't see how that is possible without reports.
    The source is here: https://humboldt.global/top-agricultural-exporters/

    And does include reexports.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited September 2023

    I like this header.

    What leaps out is the Conservatives really need to consider an April or early May election. The summers and Autumns rub their pledges all up the wrong way.

    There is a really good point here and I've been reading that others are pushing for May '24. Do it now before more failures show up.

    A record number of migrants crossed yesterday and that really riles the last of the Conservative voters.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    Hmmm

    I think it's bullshit.

    See https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?depthSelector1=HS2Depth
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited September 2023
    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!
  • Options
    OT

    The Sky News political correspondent keeps going on about Rayner's deputy leadership in question with the reshuffle. I thought that was an elected post so can't be changed by Starmer?
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    Hmmm

    I think it's bullshit.

    See https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?depthSelector1=HS2Depth
    Link not working? Bullshit in terms of tonnes of food actually grown there, but the Netherlands is one of the biggest roasted coffee exporters in the world, I think the biggest banana exporter in Europe... But apparently their biggest agricultural export is flowers and bulbs. In monetary terms at least.
  • Options
    People have basically made up their minds about the current government and the idea of "broken Britain" has become set in the the public consciousness thereby suggesting the Tories are doomed to face defeat at the coming election. I even heard children shouting vote Labour at a recent summer fete. This isn't helped by the Tories tacking to the right evermore on several issues; things like migrant barges and climate change scepticism are not going to bring them the necessary support from centirist voters they'll need to hang on. The coming election would be best held in late Spring or Summer 24. I still think though that 'time for a change ' is in play and Lab will win with a 50 seat majority.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    However much I wish that outcome so much, looking at the constituency figures I can't see it being a massive tidal wave unless there's a tidal wave of tacit tactical voting ahead. The appaling people in the cabinet are protected in the main by massive majorities, never mind the foot soldiers on their back benches.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    Hmmm

    I think it's bullshit.

    See https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?depthSelector1=HS2Depth
    Link not working? Bullshit in terms of tonnes of food actually grown there, but the Netherlands is one of the biggest roasted coffee exporters in the world, I think the biggest banana exporter in Europe... But apparently their biggest agricultural export is flowers and bulbs. In monetary terms at least.
    John Humphrys wrote a really good book called The Great Food Gamble about the UK's reliance on food imports.

    One of my biggest bugbears with Brexit is the casual damage it does to the climate through global food importation.

    But I'm not an expert in this area so I shall bow out.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Food-Gamble-John-Humphrys/dp/0340770465
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 952
    Heathener said:

    Good morning all. So begins the final Parliament of this Conservative Government.

    Jan 25 would be political suicide so the election will be in 2024. Either Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October).

    I predict that the polls will barely change from now until polling day. People's minds are largely made up. The die is cast.

    If Sunak thinks he is about to be challenged as OGH suggests then surely he would call a General Election. This October must be a possibility.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    I do expect labour to win a small majority. I don’t think it’s going to be 97 or anything like it.

    This may come back to haunt me, Rogerdamus style, but I don’t think so.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    Heathener said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    Hmmm

    I think it's bullshit.

    See https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?depthSelector1=HS2Depth
    Link not working? Bullshit in terms of tonnes of food actually grown there, but the Netherlands is one of the biggest roasted coffee exporters in the world, I think the biggest banana exporter in Europe... But apparently their biggest agricultural export is flowers and bulbs. In monetary terms at least.
    John Humphrys wrote a really good book called The Great Food Gamble about the UK's reliance on food imports.

    One of my biggest bugbears with Brexit is the casual damage it does to the climate through global food importation.

    But I'm not an expert in this area so I shall bow out.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Food-Gamble-John-Humphrys/dp/0340770465
    (1) We imported a greater share of our food a century ago than we do now.

    (2) It is much better for global warming that food is grown where it is most efficient to do so, than for us to attempt to force uneconomic production.

    (3) Food security, when then security is utterly dependent on the import of fertilizers*, is a chimera. You're just changing dependence on one import for another.

    * You need nitrogen, potassium and phosphates.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    Icarus said:

    Heathener said:

    Good morning all. So begins the final Parliament of this Conservative Government.

    Jan 25 would be political suicide so the election will be in 2024. Either Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October).

    I predict that the polls will barely change from now until polling day. People's minds are largely made up. The die is cast.

    If Sunak thinks he is about to be challenged as OGH suggests then surely he would call a General Election. This October must be a possibility.
    It is easier to beat of an internal challenge and get another 12 months in Number 10 than to call a General Election and face certain defeat.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524
    Heathener said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    Hmmm

    I think it's bullshit.

    See https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?depthSelector1=HS2Depth
    Link not working? Bullshit in terms of tonnes of food actually grown there, but the Netherlands is one of the biggest roasted coffee exporters in the world, I think the biggest banana exporter in Europe... But apparently their biggest agricultural export is flowers and bulbs. In monetary terms at least.
    John Humphrys wrote a really good book called The Great Food Gamble about the UK's reliance on food imports.

    One of my biggest bugbears with Brexit is the casual damage it does to the climate through global food importation.

    But I'm not an expert in this area so I shall bow out.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Food-Gamble-John-Humphrys/dp/0340770465
    I imagine John Humphrys isn't an expert either, he seems to usually enjoy pontificating on subjects in which he has no expertise, so surprising if he has written a really good book
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,636
    edited September 2023
    I thought we'd been told here over and over again that the Labour lead had definitely decreased, 20-point leads were a thing of the past, and so on?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965
    Just catching the news that "whatever it takes" to fix RAAC in schools is Tory speak for find it from your own budget.
  • Options
    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
  • Options
    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    edited September 2023
    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
  • Options

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so there is no point fantasising about penalties for breaking them.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,460

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,798

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so there is no point fantasising about penalties for breaking them.
    People aren't allowed to wish the law were different?
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Just catching the news that "whatever it takes" to fix RAAC in schools is Tory speak for find it from your own budget.

    The logical thing to to would be to fund this from the contingency budget. So part of the existing budget.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    edited September 2023
    Speaking of food security, Turkey's President Erdogan is due to meet Putin today amidst hopes the Ukraine grain deal can be reinstated (after Russia has just attacked Ukraine's main port for exporting grain).

    Erdogan takes grain diplomacy to Putin in Sochi
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/erdogan-takes-grain-diplomacy-putin-034655708.html
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    Schools go back this week.

    Someone else taking your class?
  • Options

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so there is no point fantasising about penalties
    for breaking them.
    Some variety of driving without due care and attention? I know they aren’t driving but thinking an equivalent

  • Options
    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    How come your seer ability didn't foresee the Tories holding Uxbridge & South Ruislip that others did?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    edited September 2023
    The caption to this photo in The Times 😱😱😱

    .

    Yes, I need to get my mind out of the gutter.
  • Options

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so there is no point fantasising about penalties for breaking them.
    So speed limits should apply to them, then.

    That should be a popular law change for a Starmer government: make the antisocial pepparami in lycra obey the same laws as us law-abiding motorists... ;)
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763

    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    How come your seer ability didn't foresee the Tories holding Uxbridge & South Ruislip that others did?
    I've picked up a couple of voices (how reliable , I couldn't say) on YouTube suggesting that Suella is on resignation watch. An attempt to put herself in the driving seat should Sunak fall in October for any upcoming leadership election. As an unflinching populist, she could offer red meat to the waverers and scupper any hope by Labour for a small majority.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,798

    The caption to this photo in The Times 😱😱😱

    .

    Yes, I need to get my mind out of the gutter.

    Mushroom enthusiasts as well, I see.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,671
    edited September 2023
    Sunak cut the budget for school rebuilding by half according to the BBC. Oh dear ....
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    rcs1000 said:

    Icarus said:

    Heathener said:

    Good morning all. So begins the final Parliament of this Conservative Government.

    Jan 25 would be political suicide so the election will be in 2024. Either Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October).

    I predict that the polls will barely change from now until polling day. People's minds are largely made up. The die is cast.

    If Sunak thinks he is about to be challenged as OGH suggests then surely he would call a General Election. This October must be a possibility.
    It is easier to beat of an internal challenge and get another 12 months in Number 10 than to call a General Election and face certain defeat.
    Sunak will go long. He'll hope something turns up and to leave the best legacy he can.

    There's no incentive for him to cut & run.
    It's amazing how lame duck an 80 seat majority can be.

    We are at the "walk away" stage of a toxic relationship, in this case between the Tory Party and the British electorate.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    How come your seer ability didn't foresee the Tories holding Uxbridge & South Ruislip that others did?
    I've picked up a couple of voices (how reliable , I couldn't say) on YouTube suggesting that Suella is on resignation watch. An attempt to put herself in the driving seat should Sunak fall in October for any upcoming leadership election. As an unflinching populist, she could offer red meat to the waverers and scupper any hope by Labour for a small majority.
    Is it possible to be an unpopular "Populist"?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so there is no point fantasising about penalties for breaking them.
    So speed limits should apply to them, then.

    That should be a popular law change for a Starmer government: make the antisocial pepparami in lycra obey the same laws as us law-abiding motorists... ;)
    There’s not much love for us cyclists in some circles 😂
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    Schools go back this week.

    Someone else taking your class?
    Or perhaps the classroom is built of RAAC?
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    I like this header.

    What leaps out is the Conservatives really need to consider an April or early May election. The summers and Autumns rub their pledges all up the wrong way.

    There is a really good point here and I've been reading that others are pushing for May '24. Do it now before more failures show up.

    A record number of migrants crossed yesterday and that really riles the last of the Conservative voters.
    And what is Starmer going to do about it? I await Braverman publishing a scorching letter admonishing him for his failure to Stop The Boats. It truly is a failure of Starmer's leadership, just as Harper had to write to him to complain about the government implementing government policy on ULEZ.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,701
    Heathener said:

    Good morning all. So begins the final Parliament of this Conservative Government.

    Jan 25 would be political suicide so the election will be in 2024. Either Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October).

    I predict that the polls will barely change from now until polling day. People's minds are largely made up. The die is cast.

    The only change will be a chunk of the REFUK vote returning to the mother ship on the day. It always does,
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    How come your seer ability didn't foresee the Tories holding Uxbridge & South Ruislip that others did?
    I've picked up a couple of voices (how reliable , I couldn't say) on YouTube suggesting that Suella is on resignation watch. An attempt to put herself in the driving seat should Sunak fall in October for any upcoming leadership election. As an unflinching populist, she could offer red meat to the waverers and scupper any hope by Labour for a small majority.
    Is it possible to be an unpopular "Populist"?
    It's their natural end state, when all their dumb promises turn out to be impossible to deliver.
  • Options
    Taz said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so there is no point fantasising about penalties for breaking them.
    So speed limits should apply to them, then.

    That should be a popular law change for a Starmer government: make the antisocial pepparami in lycra obey the same laws as us law-abiding motorists... ;)
    There’s not much love for us cyclists in some circles 😂
    Hey, I cycle. It's just that when I do cycle, I try not to cycle irresponsibly. 40MPH in a 30MPH zone is unarguably irresponsible and antisocial. As the comments below the tweet show, many cyclists seem to think that they own the road.

    The best is the one that says the police should be reported for speeding behind the cyclists....
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    edited September 2023

    Heathener said:

    Good morning all. So begins the final Parliament of this Conservative Government.

    Jan 25 would be political suicide so the election will be in 2024. Either Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October).

    I predict that the polls will barely change from now until polling day. People's minds are largely made up. The die is cast.

    The only change will be a chunk of the REFUK vote returning to the mother ship on the day. It always does,
    Cancelled out by non-BJO Greens going either LD or Lab.

    So pretty much a wash.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,734
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting article.
    New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66461769

    The Netherlands is the world's second largest agricultural exporter - how is that possible ?
    Does that involve re-export of imports, or are they just immensely good at it ?

    The Rotterdam Effect?
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Just catching the news that "whatever it takes" to fix RAAC in schools is Tory speak for find it from your own budget.

    I posted that update last night. Yesterday morning there was a bit of a spat when several of us pointed out that the Tories Do Not Care about kids in state schools. Outrageous to suggest apparently. Yet by the afternoon it was made policy.

    Tories failed to invest in replacement schools. Tories cut maintenance budgets. Tories eviscerated both the economy and the safety net, making schools and so often the teachers themselves financially liable for ensuring pupils aren't hungry and dirty.

    And now? Schools falling down. That 'stard Zahawi swept away warnings last summer, didn't want to spend. And now? There Is No Money Left. Already broken school budgets will have to pay for any additional costs as the buildings collapse around the students.

    Vote Conservative or Fuck Off.
  • Options
    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423
    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
  • Options
    sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 193
    Damien Green was on the radio yesterday and asked about the date he replied quite firmly and without hesitation October (2024). Seems quite likely.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,734

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    Speed limits do not apply to solely human-powered vehicles. They do apply to unregistered motorbikes.

    Failing to give way, stop at red lights, drunk in charge etc are all offences for which a fine can be given - and a driving licence endorsed or suspended if you have one. There’s an old story somewhere of a lorry driver who lost his job for cycling home from the pub.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    sbjme19 said:

    Damien Green was on the radio yesterday and asked about the date he replied quite firmly and without hesitation October (2024). Seems quite likely.

    He isn't really in the know any more than the rest of us surely?
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    Isn't the limit 15mph for a powered bike? So that would be illegal anyway.
  • Options
    sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 193
    No he isn't which is why I said likely rather than definite.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,734
    sbjme19 said:

    Damien Green was on the radio yesterday and asked about the date he replied quite firmly and without hesitation October (2024). Seems quite likely.

    Thursday October 24th 2024. Before the clocks go back, and avoids campaigning during the school holidays. Expect the election to be announced this week next year, with a week or two for the wash-up in Parliament.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    sbjme19 said:

    No he isn't which is why I said likely rather than definite.

    I think autumn 2024 too.

    Another wasted year of national decline.

    Not that I am optimistic about PM Starmer.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157

    A

    Taz said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Everything ;)

    Any with driving licences should get treated as if they were car drivers, and get points on their licences and/or fines. Any without driving licences should be able to prove their identity, and then receive a fine. Any who cannot prove their identity should have their bikes impounded.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so there is no point fantasising about penalties for breaking them.
    So speed limits should apply to them, then.

    That should be a popular law change for a Starmer government: make the antisocial pepparami in lycra obey the same laws as us law-abiding motorists... ;)
    There’s not much love for us cyclists in some circles 😂
    Hey, I cycle. It's just that when I do cycle, I try not to cycle irresponsibly. 40MPH in a 30MPH zone is unarguably irresponsible and antisocial. As the comments below the tweet show, many cyclists seem to think that they own the road.

    The best is the one that says the police should be reported for speeding behind the cyclists....
    Probably should - not an emergency call, speeding behind vulnerable road users, and they've got the law wrong.

    Shouldn't they be solving burglaries or something? ;)
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    Speed limits do not apply to solely human-powered vehicles. They do apply to unregistered motorbikes.

    Failing to give way, stop at red lights, drunk in charge etc are all offences for which a fine can be given - and a driving licence endorsed or suspended if you have one. There’s an old story somewhere of a lorry driver who lost his job for cycling home from the pub.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. The rest was tongue in cheek. Red lights do apply but in practice, many if not most cyclists ignore them.
  • Options

    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53

    From that FT article:-
    No new drinking water reservoirs have been built in England and Wales since 1992, while about a fifth of water in pipes is lost to leaks. There has been little of the innovation shown in countries like Israel, which recycles wastewater and use desalination plants.

    Now the regional water monopolies are struggling to invest adequately in infrastructure despite the growing population.

    Britain is not the only country in Europe to be eyeing its water supplies nervously, but it is the only nation to have sold its water resources — including pipes, reservoirs, boreholes and treatment plants — in England and Wales to private sector owners, now mostly a clutch of sovereign wealth, infrastructure and pension funds.

    Those companies — which bought the monopolies with no debt and were handed £1.5bn to make improvements — have borrowed £60bn since 1989. Much of that has been used not for new investment but to pay more than £70bn in dividends to water company owners.
  • Options
    The only problem with October 24 is what happens in 12 months time. Sunak has survived a bruising summer of plotting and policy failure. The party looks set to be utterly reamed in the election.

    So does Sunak turn up to the cabinet meeting with his wining smile and say "I'm calling an early election?". And do they just accept that when there is the alternative of not doing so?
  • Options

    Heathener said:

    I like this header.

    What leaps out is the Conservatives really need to consider an April or early May election. The summers and Autumns rub their pledges all up the wrong way.

    There is a really good point here and I've been reading that others are pushing for May '24. Do it now before more failures show up.

    A record number of migrants crossed yesterday and that really riles the last of the Conservative voters.
    And what is Starmer going to do about it? I await Braverman publishing a scorching letter admonishing him for his failure to Stop The Boats. It truly is a failure of Starmer's leadership, just as Harper had to write to him to complain about the government
    implementing government policy on ULEZ.
    Politics aside it’s a reasonable question

    Likelihood is he will be the next PM. It’s one of the major challenges facing the country. What’s his solution?

  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    Isn't the limit 15mph for a powered bike? So that would be illegal anyway.
    15mph is the limit for the electric motor; faster than that, an ebike is just a bike so speed limits do not apply.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,048

    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    Speed limits do not apply to solely human-powered vehicles. They do apply to unregistered motorbikes.

    Failing to give way, stop at red lights, drunk in charge etc are all offences for which a fine can be given - and a driving licence endorsed or suspended if you have one. There’s an old story somewhere of a lorry driver who lost his job for cycling home from the pub.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. The rest was tongue in cheek. Red lights do apply but in practice, many if not most cyclists ignore them.
    Annoys me, as a cyclist, to see others jumping reds. Gives us a bad reputation and deservedly so.

    I didn't know about speed limits to applying to bikes, but makes sense. There's a 20mph downhill section ok my commute where I must easily clear 20. If there are cars I limit myself to their speed, but absent cars I don't have an on board computer to check speed. Have a GPS tracker app, but that does a lot of averaging/lacks precision to give a real time readout.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,701
    edited September 2023

    The only problem with October 24 is what happens in 12 months time. Sunak has survived a bruising summer of plotting and policy failure. The party looks set to be utterly reamed in the election.

    So does Sunak turn up to the cabinet meeting with his wining smile and say "I'm calling an early election?". And do they just accept that when there is the alternative of not doing so?

    The earlier the election, the sooner they eventually get back into power.

    Something to be said for getting it over and done with, and clinging to power when unwanted is never a good look.
  • Options

    Heathener said:

    I like this header.

    What leaps out is the Conservatives really need to consider an April or early May election. The summers and Autumns rub their pledges all up the wrong way.

    There is a really good point here and I've been reading that others are pushing for May '24. Do it now before more failures show up.

    A record number of migrants crossed yesterday and that really riles the last of the Conservative voters.
    And what is Starmer going to do about it? I await Braverman publishing a scorching letter admonishing him for his failure to Stop The Boats. It truly is a failure of Starmer's leadership, just as Harper had to write to him to complain about the government
    implementing government policy on ULEZ.
    Politics aside it’s a reasonable question

    Likelihood is he will be the next PM. It’s one of the major challenges facing the country. What’s his solution?

    Starmer is too scared to call an election. That will be Rishi's next charge at PMQs.
  • Options

    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53

    From that FT article:-
    No new drinking water reservoirs have been built in England and Wales since 1992, while about a fifth of water in pipes is lost to leaks. There has been little of the innovation shown in countries like Israel, which recycles wastewater and use desalination plants.

    Now the regional water monopolies are struggling to invest adequately in infrastructure despite the growing population.

    Britain is not the only country in Europe to be eyeing its water supplies nervously, but it is the only nation to have sold its water resources — including pipes, reservoirs, boreholes and treatment plants — in England and Wales to private sector owners, now mostly a clutch of sovereign wealth, infrastructure and pension funds.

    Those companies — which bought the monopolies with no debt and were handed £1.5bn to make improvements — have borrowed £60bn since 1989. Much of that has been used not for new investment but to pay more than £70bn in dividends to water company owners.
    I am not an ownership zealot - privately-owned doesn't bother me if they are properly regulated. The issue is that they are not. Whilst these are PLCs with a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, they are also monopoly providers of strategic critical infrastructure.

    It should be written in stone that their operating licence for that infrastructure is conditional on them carrying out the agreed strategic provision, maintenance and forward planning of infrastructure to meet their obligations to provide enough water without crippling the environment. Failure to do so can mean enforcement action or confiscation.
  • Options

    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53

    From that FT article:-
    No new drinking water reservoirs have been built in England and Wales since 1992, while about a fifth of water in pipes is lost to leaks. There has been little of the innovation shown in countries like Israel, which recycles wastewater and use desalination plants.

    Now the regional water monopolies are struggling to invest adequately in infrastructure despite the growing population.

    Britain is not the only country in Europe to be eyeing its water supplies nervously, but it is the only nation to have sold its water resources — including pipes, reservoirs, boreholes and treatment plants — in England and Wales to private sector owners, now mostly a clutch of sovereign wealth, infrastructure and pension funds.

    Those companies — which bought the monopolies with no debt and were handed £1.5bn to make improvements — have borrowed £60bn since 1989. Much of that has been used not for new investment but to pay more than £70bn in dividends to water company owners.
    And yet the FT complains that the London stock market is seen as unattractive

    Appreciate this example is (mainly) private companies but their tone is anti business across a broad range of items

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423
    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    Isn't the limit 15mph for a powered bike? So that would be illegal anyway.
    You should hear them when stopped by the police - one tried to leave the scene of an accident he’d caused. Smashed into a trike ridden by a local lady - she rides the trike because of disability. She’s well known locally, and he was lucky the neighbourhood is so middle class. Otherwise the crowd that gathered to help her would have tuned him up. They prevent him leaving and he became very angry at that.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,438

    Heathener said:

    Good morning all. So begins the final Parliament of this Conservative Government.

    Jan 25 would be political suicide so the election will be in 2024. Either Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October).

    I predict that the polls will barely change from now until polling day. People's minds are largely made up. The die is cast.

    The only change will be a chunk of the REFUK vote returning to the mother ship on the day. It always does,
    Anecdata: RefUK and ex-Con "don't know" are the two plausible source of Tory returnees - Lab/LD voters are IMO very unlikely to switch now. I don't know anyone claiming to support RefUK but I know lots of ex-Con DKs. Typical comments in that group are "I sometimes feel I should give them another chance, and then they do something awful again" or "I just think they're exhausted and need to go, but I'm not convinced by Starmer either". I think some will drift back, a few will go Lab/LD, but the majority simply won't vote.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53

    From that FT article:-
    No new drinking water reservoirs have been built in England and Wales since 1992, while about a fifth of water in pipes is lost to leaks. There has been little of the innovation shown in countries like Israel, which recycles wastewater and use desalination plants.

    Now the regional water monopolies are struggling to invest adequately in infrastructure despite the growing population.

    Britain is not the only country in Europe to be eyeing its water supplies nervously, but it is the only nation to have sold its water resources — including pipes, reservoirs, boreholes and treatment plants — in England and Wales to private sector owners, now mostly a clutch of sovereign wealth, infrastructure and pension funds.

    Those companies — which bought the monopolies with no debt and were handed £1.5bn to make improvements — have borrowed £60bn since 1989. Much of that has been used not for new investment but to pay more than £70bn in dividends to water company owners.
    Harold MacMillan described Mrs Thatcher as "selling the family silver".

    We see now how much of Thatcherism was financed by the one offs of North Sea Oil and asset sales.
  • Options

    Heathener said:

    I like this header.

    What leaps out is the Conservatives really need to consider an April or early May election. The summers and Autumns rub their pledges all up the wrong way.

    There is a really good point here and I've been reading that others are pushing for May '24. Do it now before more failures show up.

    A record number of migrants crossed yesterday and that really riles the last of the Conservative voters.
    And what is Starmer going to do about it? I await Braverman publishing a scorching letter admonishing him for his failure to Stop The Boats. It truly is a failure of Starmer's leadership, just as Harper had to write to him to complain about the government
    implementing government policy on ULEZ.
    Politics aside it’s a reasonable question

    Likelihood is he will be the next PM. It’s one of the major challenges facing the country. What’s his solution?

    Labour have announced their proposals. That the Tories keep saying "you don't have a plan" doesn't make it true. Especially when the Tory plan was written with a red crayon and patently doesn't work.
  • Options
    Icarus said:

    If Sunak thinks he is about to be challenged as OGH suggests then surely he would call a General Election. This October must be a possibility.

    The nuclear option. If you come for me, I'll take you down with me. Sunak can use that as a defence, though, which would make an early election less likely.
  • Options

    The only problem with October 24 is what happens in 12 months time. Sunak has survived a bruising summer of plotting and policy failure. The party looks set to be utterly reamed in the election.

    So does Sunak turn up to the cabinet meeting with his wining smile and say "I'm calling an early election?". And do they just accept that when there is the alternative of not doing so?

    The earlier the election, the sooner they eventually get back into power.

    Something to be said for getting it over and done with, and clinging to power when unwanted is never a good look.
    Different "them", though. Going to the country now will bring the date of the next Conservative government forward, but the faces at the top will all be different.

    A collectivist party might swallow that, but the Conservatives don't work like that.

    Besides, the current iteration of the Conservative party really aren't good at long term thinking.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    The 2024 General Election will eclipse 1997.

    Records will be broken.

    Your friendly pb Seer bids you a good morning. I'm off to stay with my Conservative friend in Surrey for a week. Could be lively!

    Schools go back this week.

    Someone else taking your class?
    Or perhaps the classroom is built of RAAC?
    Let's hear if all the other teachers in a similar position are staying with their mates for a week for a laugh.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    ...
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.

    Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.

    Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.

    The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
  • Options

    Heathener said:

    I like this header.

    What leaps out is the Conservatives really need to consider an April or early May election. The summers and Autumns rub their pledges all up the wrong way.

    There is a really good point here and I've been reading that others are pushing for May '24. Do it now before more failures show up.

    A record number of migrants crossed yesterday and that really riles the last of the Conservative voters.
    And what is Starmer going to do about it? I await Braverman publishing a scorching letter admonishing him for his failure to Stop The Boats. It truly is a failure of Starmer's leadership, just as Harper had to write to him to complain about the government
    implementing government policy on ULEZ.
    Politics aside it’s a reasonable question

    Likelihood is he will be the next PM. It’s one of the major challenges facing the country. What’s his solution?

    Starmer is too scared to call an election.
    That will be Rishi's next charge at PMQs.
    I was asking a policy question not making a cheap political jibe
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554

    The only problem with October 24 is what happens in 12 months time. Sunak has survived a bruising summer of plotting and policy failure. The party looks set to be utterly reamed in the election.

    So does Sunak turn up to the cabinet meeting with his wining smile and say "I'm calling an early election?". And do they just accept that when there is the alternative of not doing so?

    The earlier the election, the sooner they eventually get back into power.

    Something to be said for getting it over and done with, and clinging to power when unwanted is never a good look.
    Even in the dog days of the last Labour government between 2008 and 2010 the Government were doing things.

    When was the last time this Government sent something to Parliament to do work on.
  • Options
    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    Speed limits do not apply to solely human-powered vehicles. They do apply to unregistered motorbikes.

    Failing to give way, stop at red lights, drunk in charge etc are all offences for which a fine can be given - and a driving licence endorsed or suspended if you have one. There’s an old story somewhere of a lorry driver who lost his job for cycling home from the pub.
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. The rest was tongue in cheek. Red lights do apply but in practice, many if not most cyclists ignore them.
    Annoys me, as a cyclist, to see others jumping reds. Gives us a bad reputation and deservedly so.

    I didn't know about speed limits to applying to bikes, but makes sense. There's a 20mph downhill section ok my commute where I must easily clear 20. If there are cars I limit myself to their speed, but absent cars I don't have an on board computer to check speed. Have a GPS tracker app, but that does a lot of averaging/lacks precision to give a real time readout.
    I'm lucky to get my Apollo mountain bike above 15 MPH. which is good, as I generally don't hurt myself if/when I come off... ;)

    There's another interesting (to me, at least...) point here. All the cyclists screeching: "The speed limits don't apply to cycles!" are ignoring the morality of it. It may be *legal* to ride your bike at 40MP in a 30MPH zone; but is it the *right* thing to do?

    I'd strongly argue no. It's very antisocial.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    ...
    Foxy said:

    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53

    From that FT article:-
    No new drinking water reservoirs have been built in England and Wales since 1992, while about a fifth of water in pipes is lost to leaks. There has been little of the innovation shown in countries like Israel, which recycles wastewater and use desalination plants.

    Now the regional water monopolies are struggling to invest adequately in infrastructure despite the growing population.

    Britain is not the only country in Europe to be eyeing its water supplies nervously, but it is the only nation to have sold its water resources — including pipes, reservoirs, boreholes and treatment plants — in England and Wales to private sector owners, now mostly a clutch of sovereign wealth, infrastructure and pension funds.

    Those companies — which bought the monopolies with no debt and were handed £1.5bn to make improvements — have borrowed £60bn since 1989. Much of that has been used not for new investment but to pay more than £70bn in dividends to water company owners.
    Harold MacMillan described Mrs Thatcher as "selling the family silver".

    We see now how much of Thatcherism was financed by the one offs of North Sea Oil and asset sales.
    Behave, you are not allowed to suggest that! Britain was broken by Brown selling off gold in a bear market and PFI contracts. That's all we need to know.
  • Options

    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53

    From that FT article:-
    No new drinking water reservoirs have been built in England and Wales since 1992, while about a fifth of water in pipes is lost to leaks. There has been little of the innovation shown in countries like Israel, which recycles wastewater and use desalination plants.

    Now the regional water monopolies are struggling to invest adequately in infrastructure despite the growing population.

    Britain is not the only country in Europe to be eyeing its water supplies nervously, but it is the only nation to have sold its water resources — including pipes, reservoirs, boreholes and treatment plants — in England and Wales to private sector owners, now mostly a clutch of sovereign wealth, infrastructure and pension funds.

    Those companies — which bought the monopolies with no debt and were handed £1.5bn to make improvements — have borrowed £60bn since 1989. Much of that has been used not for new investment but to pay more than £70bn in dividends to water company owners.
    Though it's illegal to borrow to pay dividends. Any dividends must by law come from fully franked retained earnings (profits).

    So if that is the case there's been a double failure of regulations, a failure of water ones and a failure of business ones too. Or something else is the case.
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,122
    edited September 2023

    Broken Tory Britain part 704 - how our water companies pay bumper dividends whilst we run out of water https://www.ft.com/content/19caeb90-b5c9-46b2-9118-8d69d4c48d53

    From that FT article:-
    No new drinking water reservoirs have been built in England and Wales since 1992, while about a fifth of water in pipes is lost to leaks. There has been little of the innovation shown in countries like Israel, which recycles wastewater and use desalination plants.

    Now the regional water monopolies are struggling to invest adequately in infrastructure despite the growing population.

    Britain is not the only country in Europe to be eyeing its water supplies nervously, but it is the only nation to have sold its water resources — including pipes, reservoirs, boreholes and treatment plants — in England and Wales to private sector owners, now mostly a clutch of sovereign wealth, infrastructure and pension funds.

    Those companies — which bought the monopolies with no debt and were handed £1.5bn to make improvements — have borrowed £60bn since 1989. Much of that has been used not for new investment but to pay more than £70bn in dividends to water company owners.
    Though it's illegal to borrow to pay dividends. Any dividends must by law come from fully franked retained earnings (profits).

    So if that is the case there's been a double failure of regulations, a failure of water ones and a failure of business ones too. Or something else is the case.
    Private Equity shops are /very/ good at finding creative ways around accounting restrictions. It’s practically their raison d’être.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    Isn't the limit 15mph for a powered bike? So that would be illegal anyway.
    Yes and it is simply powered assist. The power won’t work unless you pedal

    However these bikes do get modified. I saw a Police report on Twitter, or whatever it is called these days, where they had stopped a group with these bikes modified to exceed 20MPH without pedalling.

    So they need tax, insurance etc etc.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423
    https://roadlawbarristers.co.uk/wanton-and-furious-cycling-a-guide-to-the-road-traffic-laws-that-apply-to-cyclists/


    Speeding offences - Because bikes aren’t fitted with speedometers, cyclists can’t be charged with speeding offences. HOWEVER, if they are considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they could be charges with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2))


    @PBLawyers - is this right?
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.

    Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.

    Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.

    The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
    And proportionality.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423

    FPT:

    FF43 said:

    AlsoLei said:

    FF43 said:

    Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.

    (1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.

    (2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.

    (3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.

    My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?

    The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.

    As @NickPalmer and others have pointed out in the past, Russia have been busily creating "facts on the ground" in Crimea and the Donbas since 2014. Ukrainians might reasonably term this "ethnic cleansing" - but, even if it weren't for the current war, reversing this might well be messy.

    Russia has force Ukraine into a position where they have to choose a hegemon - and they've chosen to look west. They want to see a path towards EU membership, and either full NATO membership or some form of association with strong security guarantees. That's Number 1 on their list, everything else is below that.

    So if some sort of deal can be worked out - say if Russia pays something towards compensation for the lost territory and an indemnity for the cost of the current war - then I suspect that many Ukrainians may be tempted to settle.

    But they'd need to be very very sure about those security guarantees - no more military incursions, no more threats to Black Sea shipping, no more cutting off oil or gas pipelines, some form of international control for Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station.
    The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.

    Yes. But that doesn't seem to apply to the Russians. As long as the Russians want more territory, Ukraine will have no security. Hence I think Ukraine's three basic choices are as I set out.

    I can see an eventual deal where Ukraine trades Russian occupation of Crimea for getting out of disputed areas of the Donbas. The key would be to turn Crimea from a stronghold to a Ukrainian hostage. Ukraine trains its guns across the Crimean isthmus and down the Azov Sea to Kerch: you don't muck us up in Donbas and we won't do the same to you in Crimea.
    I was opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, but at this point it seems to me a necessary element of a potential deal. Russia is having enough trouble fighting Ukraine with NATO backing: they certainly would not attack them as a NATO member, any more than they've attacked the Baltic States, because they'd be fighting the US directly. A ceasefire on current lines plus Ukraine in NATO would (a) defeat the main objective of the invasion, so that aggression is not rewarded (b) give the solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety (c) allow the pro-Russian minority to stay with Russia and (d) stop the slaughter. Would most people in Ukraine support years more war in order to retake Crimea, if they knew they'd be safe with a ceasefire?

    Can we/should we push Ukraine to consider that? No, but we could express it as a preference, rather than escalating with one more weapons system every 3 months, which encourages a one-more-heave approach by Ukraine without actually resulting in victory.
    This post is quite wrong, for several fairly obvious reasons.

    *) What do the Ukrainians want? They want a) their territory back, and b) a reduced, or no, threat from Russia. Memberships of NATO and the EU are nice-to-haves, but those top two are vital.

    *) What do we want? Ukraine and Russia to be at peace forever (or at least a very long time). We want to deter other similar wars of expansionist aggression around the world. We want Russia to stop interfering with neighbouring countries.

    *) What does Russia want? Eastern Europe to be under its influence, directly or indirectly, and to be seen as a major stronking world power (despite having the 11th largest economy, and shrinking). It wants to destroy the western-based world order and replace it with its own view.

    Your idea of a 'peace' deal is nothing of the sort, as it will not prevent Russia interfering in its neighbouring countries, politically or militarily. Putin sees NATO as a weak entity, despite everything that has happened, and he knows it be be divided politically.

    Your 'peace' proposal does nothing to dissuade Putin from his imperialist, fascist expansion. He will take a few years off, rebuild his military, absorb Belarus, then go for one of his non-NATO members such as Georgia or Khazakhstan, or break NATO politically and then go for Ukraine again. After all, enough idiots believe the 'Ukrainian NAZI's!!!! rubbish.

    We need the Russian government and Putin to realise that this war has been disastrous for them, and that it is not worth doing again. If they *gain* territory - as your 'peace' deal proposes, then they will show that the war *was* successful, and that the business is very much unfinished.

    Russia's aggression will have been rewarded.

    "solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety "

    You mean, none of it?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#/media/File:1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum_results.svg

    Nick, I don't know if you've seen the reports that came out of the Donbass after 2014, and the way the public were treated. The same with Chechnya. You are condemning good men and women to similar. The real Nazis, or at least fascists, are the ones your 'peace' deal will hand millions of people to.
    Also FPT -

    https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

    The idea that Russia *has* to come out of this war with *something* is identical to the “peace deals” of the Yugoslav wars. Because “facts on the ground”.

    Which resulted in years of slaughter.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,438
    edited September 2023
    I see Betfair has moved in mid-Beds close to my original suggestion that all 3 main parties should be on 2.5 (should have been "all on 3" as the popular Indie mayor doesn't seem to be doing anything). Current prices as I write are 3.3/3.5/2.64 (C/L/LD), vs. 5/5/0.5 previously, so I hope quite a lot of people here have done well with trading bets. I suspect the trend still has a bit further to go.

    We are short of on-the-ground reports. I'm on the Labour mailing list and their schedule certainly looks punishing - 3 canvass sessions, 7 days a week (each town/village in turn), plus wave after wave of leaflet delivery. The local CLP is small but help is reportedly pouring in from all sides. I've no idea what the others are doing (can others comment?), but I don't think massive Lab->LD tactical voting is very likely in the face of that blitz, so 2.64 still looks short to me (DYOR, though). Objectively I'd think the Tories should be the favourites with a split opposition vote, but will they turn out? Maybe the odds should be more like 2.6/2.8/3.6?

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.215148472
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.

    Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.

    Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.

    The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
    And proportionality.
    Agreed.

    Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.

    Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.

    Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.

    The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
    And proportionality.
    Can you expand on that thought, please?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    Isn't the limit 15mph for a powered bike? So that would be illegal anyway.
    Yes and it is simply powered assist. The power won’t work unless you pedal

    However these bikes do get modified. I saw a Police report on Twitter, or whatever it is called these days, where they had stopped a group with these bikes modified to exceed 20MPH without pedalling.

    So they need tax, insurance etc etc.
    Quite a few are conversions of regular bikes with kits bought on the internet.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423

    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.

    Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.

    Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.

    The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
    And proportionality.
    Agreed.

    Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
    Hey, be fair. We *do* need more organ donors.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157

    Eabhal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kamski said:

    (fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).

    "Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"

    https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1698364462552490373

    (fx: cackles as he watches.)

    What's controversial about that?
    Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
    You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
    Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?

    Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.

    There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
    I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.

    Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.

    Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.

    The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
    And proportionality.
    Agreed.

    Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
    You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
This discussion has been closed.