-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
If I'm working 5 days a week, I want paying for all of that. I don't want to share it withsomeone who doesn't want to work at all. Thinking I will do so fundamentally misunderstands human nature. If what you're saying however is that it should be possible to work part time, then I agree.
I suspect though could be wrong that his point of view is everyone should get the same wage regardless
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
You mean like here - the main road from Colwyn Bay to Llandudno:
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys
2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
Why build more doohickeys then are needed? If there is a glut of doohickeys then yes, the value of the doohickey goes down. But if the worker decides how many doohickies to make why would they make a surplus? Capitalists need surpluses to extract ever greater value from labour - but labour alone doesn’t need to do that.
I didnt say there were surplus doohickeys....clue for you a company doesnt make more doohickeys than it could sell. You are evading the question here because you know damn well paying twice as much for the same labour is the issue here. If labour is a large part of the cost of a doohickey then the price of each doohickey goes up substantially
Company selling a number of doohickies and the number of doohickies needed are not the same. Company will often advertise and create a market for doohicky that isn’t based on need but want.
If you have more people than is needed to make things - why should people be punished with poverty? If they can make enough for people - they should have things.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys
2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
Why build more doohickeys then are needed? If there is a glut of doohickeys then yes, the value of the doohickey goes down. But if the worker decides how many doohickies to make why would they make a surplus? Capitalists need surpluses to extract ever greater value from labour - but labour alone doesn’t need to do that.
I didnt say there were surplus doohickeys....clue for you a company doesnt make more doohickeys than it could sell. You are evading the question here because you know damn well paying twice as much for the same labour is the issue here. If labour is a large part of the cost of a doohickey then the price of each doohickey goes up substantially
Company selling a number of doohickies and the number of doohickies needed are not the same. Company will often advertise and create a market for doohicky that isn’t based on need but want.
If you have more people than is needed to make things - why should people be punished with poverty? If they can make enough for people - they should have things.
It's not clear whether you think there are too many doohickies being produced or not enough.
So apparently the vote for the party with these policies in their manifesto was not an acceptable mandate for these policies because there wasn’t a “national debate”. So… can they just ignore the manifesto policies completely now? Sunak’s argument seems to be “government can’t be bothered to do this, so we won’t”.
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I predicted I'd get that response from you: "But you don't even live here" in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
When you get challenged on the specifics, you always hide. Which means people will naturally doubt the generalities.
You said there are many. It can't be that hard.
You can doubt as much as you like, but to abolish 97% of 30mph limits across Wales has created this situation with the uproar we are experiencing
Imagine Starmer abolished 97% of England's 30 mph zones and see just how many would be deemed unnecessary
But 97 percent is one of those numbers that needs context.
Most of those will be purely residential streets, whose sole purpose is to have houses on their sides. I don't know what percentage, but it will be a lot, by both number and length. You may disagree, but I'm fine with all of those being 20 mph.
It's true there are some streets that are both ways of getting from A to B and have houses along their length. They're trickier, sure. Though most of those will be pretty stop start, in which case the 30 limit is a bit of an illusion.
Then there are purely A to B roads, albeit many places are missing those. No pedestrians, no problem with faster.
All Wales has done is change from a limit of 30 mph unless councils make it lower to 20 mph unless the council makes it faster. And as I understand it, that was in the rules all along.
It's actually pretty depressing seeing Conservatives leap on this stuff like a seagull on a plate of chips. Most changes have winners and losers. The losers are always louder than the winners. Parties of government understand that and factor it in- you don't ignore the complaints, but you downweigh their volume. It gives you more accurate indications of the true feeling.
Conservatives have stopped bothering to do that. And if they're not a party of government, what are they?
Sir Lindsay Hoyle has called out Sunak for the snivelling little shit he is.
Is this the real Rishi, do we think, or is he pandering to shore up his right flank for the GE?
Somebody has read too much into the Uxbridge & South Ruislip result.
Yep. Way too much.
Exactly what I feared would happen. I'm honestly stunned by the stupidity of this. Some people being a bit grumpy about having to pay a penalty does not mean there is a mandate for fiddling whilst the planet burns.
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
No, I meant beforethe 20mph came in. I was trying to remember from when I last went to Llandudno (in May) how much of the route from the A55 was 30mph (and presumably now 20mph). My guess was about 4 miles. I may be well out!
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Along a road used by cyclists and pedesetrians?
Any road other than a motorway can have cyclists and pedestrians can't it? What am I missing?
Sir Lindsay Hoyle has called out Sunak for the snivelling little shit he is.
Is this the real Rishi, do we think, or is he pandering to shore up his right flank for the GE?
I don't think that Rishi is devoted to the green lifestyle, more to his chopper and citizen of nowhere international households.
IME most of the people claiming they are 'devoted' to the 'green lifestyle' are equally at home traveling by jet around the world for their hollibobs. Many even have second homes abroad.
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
You mean like here - the main road from Colwyn Bay to Llandudno:
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Along a road used by cyclists and pedesetrians?
Any road other than a motorway can have cyclists and pedestrians can't it? What am I missing?
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
No, I meant beforethe 20mph came in. I was trying to remember from when I last went to Llandudno (in May) how much of the route from the A55 was 30mph (and presumably now 20mph). My guess was about 4 miles. I may be well out!
A55 at the West End to Llandudno Town Centre is 5.7 miles
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
You mean like here - the main road from Colwyn Bay to Llandudno:
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Along a road used by cyclists and pedesetrians?
Any road other than a motorway can have cyclists and pedestrians can't it? What am I missing?
Sheffield Parkway is no cyclists.
Parts of the new A14 cannot have cyclists (or horses...) either. In fact, many fast non-motorways have restrictions to traffic.
As Sunak confirms he's delaying EV target from 2030 to 2035 in line with the EU, worth re-upping this: the whole point of 2030 was to *beat the EU* in attracting investment.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle has called out Sunak for the snivelling little shit he is.
Is this the real Rishi, do we think, or is he pandering to shore up his right flank for the GE?
I don't think that Rishi is devoted to the green lifestyle, more to his chopper and citizen of nowhere international households.
He's just pandering to his particular voters. Pure self-serving populism.
Plenty of it was predictable, such as 2035 for EVs, and the fake claims about having been working on offshore wind continually when in reality all the stuff 2010-2020 was just maintaining work started by New Labour.
10k to put a heat pump in a terraced house in Darlington, if I heard it correctly?
Is the man misrepresenting, has he bundled other stuff in, or is he on drugs? Suspect he's quoting a number without the Govt grant, and perhaps ignoring other things.
As Sunak confirms he's delaying EV target from 2030 to 2035 in line with the EU, worth re-upping this: the whole point of 2030 was to *beat the EU* in attracting investment.
Well yes. Rishi has drastically undermined Brexit here: this was a golden opportunity to show how nimble Britain can leave the lumbering old EU for dead. Boris must be fuming.
From @Breakingviews : Rishi Sunak is considering watering down the UK’s targets for EVs and energy efficiency. The move may play well with some voters. The loser is not only Britain’s net-zero credibility – but its long-term economic health, writes @Unmack1
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Along a road used by cyclists and pedesetrians?
Any road other than a motorway can have cyclists and pedestrians can't it? What am I missing?
Edinburgh ring road. But that's a national speed limit road.
And it essentially replaces the parallel B701 etc which is still available for vermin below the notice of PBbackless glove types, aka cyclists and pedestrians.
I didn't know we had any taxes on meat, apart of course VAT on takeaways/restaurant food in general, or that anyone had seven different bins, lucky them if it means they get rid of more without having to take it to the recycling centre.
There was a smattering of applause for Sunak's speech - always a telltale sign of desperate spin. It's a first for a press conf in Downing St, but MPs clapping like seals may just underline the sense of a PM in trouble.
I didn't know we had any taxes on meat, apart of course VAT on takeaways/restaurant food in general, or that anyone had seven different bins, lucky them if it means they get rid of more without having to take it to the recycling centre.
Isn't that a series of straw men?
I've never heard of the one and three.
The third we already have the highest taxes on people flying of anywhere in Europe via Air Passenger Duty, so that makes some sense - but leaving VAT etc of aviation fuel is loopy, and needs a European agreement.
Who proposed compulsory car sharing? That TBH sounds like the sort of dishonest claim I might expect from Mark Harper.
The point about insulation upgrades is that they aren't expensive, especially compared to tax free Govt driven rises in house prices, unless it is done in a really stupid way.
My wife has just come back from her WI meeting, where there was a report on a persistent problem over a ‘required’ zebra crossing. The authorities have said that as there hasn’t been a fatality at the point there’s no need for a crossing. I should say it’s to get from part of the town to the only local supermarket. I offered to put a post on our Facebook asking for a sacrificial volunteer but was told firmly not to!
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Along a road used by cyclists and pedesetrians?
Any road other than a motorway can have cyclists and pedestrians can't it? What am I missing?
Edinburgh ring road. But that's a national speed limit road.
Several roads in Scotland are notMotorway. A720 City Bypass. A1 Dunbar Expressway. A90 AWPR. Not a motorway. But a special road. Which is legally what makes a motorway a motorway.
The tell is that the speed limit is 70mph, not NSL. Because special roads in Scotland do not apply the national speed limit. So when your notMotorway has 70 roundels, you know its a motorway with green signs.
She’s wearing a vanilla day collar for a sub. The meme-ology and symbology are pitifully wrong
I was thinking similar. They needed to photoshop the necklace on to Rishi.
BTW I think you nailed part of the reason why France is “boring”
It is, as you say, because it no longer feels exotic. Partly because Britain has become more like France, and vice versa, and also because I’ve been here so often. I am now in Toulouse airport. The biggest food outlet here is a Pret A Manger, which kinda sums it up. The French are eating British sandwiches (I don’t blame them, they are better than French) made by a British company - with a French name, so they can appeal to Brits, their original market
But there is something else at work. It is related to the relative lack of humour, the French take themselves seriously, too much for British tastes, perhaps
ALSO as you say, why the FUCK did they get rid of the yellow headlights. I liked those. Seeing them stream down a Pyrenean mountain at dusk told you: THIS IS FRANCE, IT IS WEIRD AND DIFFERENT
I didn't know we had any taxes on meat, apart of course VAT on takeaways/restaurant food in general, or that anyone had seven different bins, lucky them if it means they get rid of more without having to take it to the recycling centre.
Isn't that a series of straw men?
I was being mildly sarcastic - though I'm genuinely taken with the seven bins idea (having long ago cottoned on to keeping a smaller bin inside a bigger one till the collection morning). I want.
Several roads in Scotland are notMotorway. A720 City Bypass. A1 Dunbar Expressway. A90 AWPR. Not a motorway. But a special road. Which is legally what makes a motorway a motorway.
The tell is that the speed limit is 70mph, not NSL. Because special roads in Scotland do not apply the national speed limit. So when your notMotorway has 70 roundels, you know its a motorway with green signs.
When a governing party decide to change leader, there should be a GE pretty soon after - the new PM has no mandate from the public as is shown, Boris aside, by everyone who has tried it this century.
I know we don’t vote for a President, and it’s the party etc etc but, in reality, the public don’t seem to like a PM imposed on them by a political party
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Along a road used by cyclists and pedesetrians?
Any road other than a motorway can have cyclists and pedestrians can't it? What am I missing?
Edinburgh ring road. But that's a national speed limit road.
Several roads in Scotland are notMotorway. A720 City Bypass. A1 Dunbar Expressway. A90 AWPR. Not a motorway. But a special road. Which is legally what makes a motorway a motorway.
The tell is that the speed limit is 70mph, not NSL. Because special roads in Scotland do not apply the national speed limit. So when your notMotorway has 70 roundels, you know its a motorway with green signs.
"Special" A-roads in London include the A406 from Beckton to Edmonton, A12 between Wanstead and Bow, and A13 between Dagenham and the M25.
Comments
If you have more people than is needed to make things - why should people be punished with poverty? If they can make enough for people - they should have things.
Really?
Even if you have an aversion to Labour and Starmer does anyone really not think that rolling the dice might be worth a go next time?
We know who's really in charge.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1704518698407465335?t=nmlKG0HY6kVlTxf170moWQ&s=19
The guy who has by-passed parliament to make this announcement.
Is he under the influence?
Most of those will be purely residential streets, whose sole purpose is to have houses on their sides. I don't know what percentage, but it will be a lot, by both number and length. You may disagree, but I'm fine with all of those being 20 mph.
It's true there are some streets that are both ways of getting from A to B and have houses along their length. They're trickier, sure. Though most of those will be pretty stop start, in which case the 30 limit is a bit of an illusion.
Then there are purely A to B roads, albeit many places are missing those. No pedestrians, no problem with faster.
All Wales has done is change from a limit of 30 mph unless councils make it lower to 20 mph unless the council makes it faster. And as I understand it, that was in the rules all along.
It's actually pretty depressing seeing Conservatives leap on this stuff like a seagull on a plate of chips. Most changes have winners and losers. The losers are always louder than the winners. Parties of government understand that and factor it in- you don't ignore the complaints, but you downweigh their volume. It gives you more accurate indications of the true feeling.
Conservatives have stopped bothering to do that. And if they're not a party of government, what are they?
Citizens of nowhere, eh?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3131907,-3.766482,3a,30.6y,312.73h,82.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sstpWv9ZHgRJjD2s6OmxCbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
The reaction of many posters is predictable but ultimately it is the public who will decide
As Sunak confirms he's delaying EV target from 2030 to 2035 in line with the EU, worth re-upping this: the whole point of 2030 was to *beat the EU* in attracting investment.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1704522300467331463
Plenty of it was predictable, such as 2035 for EVs, and the fake claims about having been working on offshore wind continually when in reality all the stuff 2010-2020 was just maintaining work started by New Labour.
10k to put a heat pump in a terraced house in Darlington, if I heard it correctly?
Is the man misrepresenting, has he bundled other stuff in, or is he on drugs? Suspect he's quoting a number without the Govt grant, and perhaps ignoring other things.
Octopus quote that virtually all of their quotes come in at under 8k, with prices starting at £3k:
https://octopus.energy/get-a-heat-pump/
No thanks.
Rishi Sunak, the unelected PM, having the nerve to talk about the "risk" of "losing the consent of the British people" is quite a thing.
https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1704522032312922339
I suspect this has not been thought through and is just a load of bollocks.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1704524138944123188?t=IABtuGIFARqaHGVIG0xfew&s=19
From
@Breakingviews
: Rishi Sunak is considering watering down the UK’s targets for EVs and energy efficiency. The move may play well with some voters. The loser is not only Britain’s net-zero credibility – but its long-term economic health, writes
@Unmack1
These are the things that the government was not doing and which the Prime Minister now says he is stopping.
https://x.com/carldinnen/status/1704524723713953920?s=20
'Are you panicking about losing the next election?
-
@ChrisMasonBBC
'We remain a world leader. I think my approach is the right one'
-Rishi Sunak
So yes
"Half-million-year-old wooden structure unearthed in Zambia"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66846772
At least it was delivered before HS2...
There was a smattering of applause for Sunak's speech - always a telltale sign of desperate spin.
It's a first for a press conf in Downing St, but MPs clapping like seals may just underline the sense of a PM in trouble.
Sadly no manufacturer will be making them then as the worldwide market will have made them an expensive niche product.
I've never heard of the one and three.
The third we already have the highest taxes on people flying of anywhere in Europe via Air Passenger Duty, so that makes some sense - but leaving VAT etc of aviation fuel is loopy, and needs a European agreement.
Who proposed compulsory car sharing? That TBH sounds like the sort of dishonest claim I might expect from Mark Harper.
The point about insulation upgrades is that they aren't expensive, especially compared to tax free Govt driven rises in house prices, unless it is done in a really stupid way.
Hail Mary Passes 68 to about 83.
I'd like to sort this government into seven different bins.
Of course you do.
I offered to put a post on our Facebook asking for a sacrificial volunteer but was told firmly not to!
The tell is that the speed limit is 70mph, not NSL. Because special roads in Scotland do not apply the national speed limit. So when your notMotorway has 70 roundels, you know its a motorway with green signs.
It is, as you say, because it no longer feels exotic. Partly because Britain has become more like France, and vice versa, and also because I’ve been here so often. I am now in Toulouse airport. The biggest food outlet here is a Pret A Manger, which kinda sums it up. The French are eating British sandwiches (I don’t blame them, they are better than French) made by a British company - with a French name, so they can appeal to Brits, their original market
But there is something else at work. It is related to the relative lack of humour, the French take themselves seriously, too much for British tastes, perhaps
ALSO as you say, why the FUCK did they get rid of the yellow headlights. I liked those. Seeing them stream down a Pyrenean mountain at dusk told you: THIS IS FRANCE, IT IS WEIRD AND DIFFERENT
See also: the smell of Gitanes and Disque Bleu
Amazing moment where Sunak is caught out (by the Times, I think) of not having done his homework (got the date of the gas boiler phase-out wrong).
The sheer panic on his face as he gabbles through pre-planned soundbites because he doesn't know the answer is almost heart-breaking
But the "in the pocket" meme is too established to turn down.
I know we don’t vote for a President, and it’s the party etc etc but, in reality, the public don’t seem to like a PM imposed on them by a political party