1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
It looks a pretty sound prediction to me. In fact it's very close to what I would be betting on if the spreads were up now. Maybe I would have Tory seats a bit lower, and Labour a bit higher, but not by much. The LD forecast looks highly plausible. They will do well, but have some stonking majorities to overcome.
Now when is that nice Mr Sunak calling the Election?
If, and this is a very big if, Sunak runs from here through to Christmas on a lot of policy announcements, then they may be hoping that this gives them some sort of momentum to narrow the lead (I remain to be convinced, but let’s just say they manage it).
If I were Sunak going into a spring campaign with a deficit of say 8 to 5 points would look relatively tempting. It catches Labour on the hoof who will probably be expecting October, and with a bit of swing back there is a plausible route to say 220-250 seats. A defeat, but a noble one.
The big argument against this is that no one forces themselves into an election they know they’re going to lose, and Sunak can claim 2 years in the job if he sticks it through to October, which sounds better than 18 months.
It’s not going to catch Labour on the hoof. A spring election is widely speculated. Of course Labour have plans for a spring election.
If he is majoring on potholes it has to be next autumn.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
Seems to make sense for several reasons . Car gives choice so you don’t rely on public transport and those without a car might not be through choice so lower earners ties in with that group less likely to vote .
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
I've used you can put a boat on a ship but not a ship on a boat.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
I've used you can put a boat on a ship but not a ship on a boat.
But you can put a ship on a barge. And even boats as large as nuclear missile submarines in the USN and RN.
Somewhat anachronistically Patrick O’Brien taught me that a ship possessed 3 or more masts. I also have a vague memory that a ship had to be commanded by a captain.
You forgot the 'square rigged on all three' bit - and, I think, a bowsprit, though a gaff mizzen sail is also usual, as are fore and aft staysails.
There were honorary captains and Captains RN by personal rank, too, which doesn't help. Quite a few ships were commanded by Lieutenants and Commanders though they got called Captain as an honorific - even in later life, rather confusingly (I know of at least one example from local historical research).
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
I always thought a Korean style armistice was the most likely outcome.
50-100k US/NATO troops permanently stationed there ? Possibly.
Indeed. Not necessarily the worst outcome in the world.
Of course, if Trump wins in 2024, that changes the landscape considerably for the poorer.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
In the US it's because polling stations are sometimes only accessible by car.
I suppose there will be a similar if smaller effect in the UK.
It is hard not to be shocked every four years by pictures of Americans queueing for hours to vote as if it were an impoverished, newly democratic country where voters would have their thumbs inked.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
In the US it's because polling stations are sometimes only accessible by car.
I suppose there will be a similar if smaller effect in the UK.
It is hard not to be shocked every four years by pictures of Americans queueing for hours to vote as if it were an impoverished, newly democratic country where voters would have their thumbs inked.
With charities set up to provide water and blankets to those queueing.
I think there was a case of some black voter areas not having a polling station at all, with their allocated one in a parking lot miles away on the other side of town?
Motorist is such a 20th century term. It always makes me think of blokes who wear chamois leather gloves when they get behind the wheel of their Rovers...
Isn't that who Rishi is talking to ?
Exactly. The ones who were doing it in the 1960s and 1970s. And the prematurely senile ones who have signed up to that vision.
And we all know why they wear backless gloves.
To show off their sexy liver spots?
Nope, their hairy palms. Or so I was told by my friend in the 1970s.
Edit: it was a meme then, possibly avant la lettre Dawkinsienne.
Surely hairy palms could only be shown off with frontless gloves?
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
It looks a pretty sound prediction to me. In fact it's very close to what I would be betting on if the spreads were up now. Maybe I would have Tory seats a bit lower, and Labour a bit higher, but not by much. The LD forecast looks highly plausible. They will do well, but have some stonking majorities to overcome.
Now when is that nice Mr Sunak calling the Election?
If, and this is a very big if, Sunak runs from here through to Christmas on a lot of policy announcements, then they may be hoping that this gives them some sort of momentum to narrow the lead (I remain to be convinced, but let’s just say they manage it).
If I were Sunak going into a spring campaign with a deficit of say 8 to 5 points would look relatively tempting. It catches Labour on the hoof who will probably be expecting October, and with a bit of swing back there is a plausible route to say 220-250 seats. A defeat, but a noble one.
The big argument against this is that no one forces themselves into an election they know they’re going to lose, and Sunak can claim 2 years in the job if he sticks it through to October, which sounds better than 18 months.
It will be October IMO, but... if the Conservatives were somehow able to snatch the London mayoralty (and don't do too badly in the local elections on the same day) it's possible they could go for a June or early July election.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
That does seem especially disastrous for the Conservatives, right now. A party can survive that level of defeat.
196 seats is little different to what Howard got in 2005 and 5 years later the Conservatives were in government
Yep, via a switch to centrist, socially liberal, green and detoxifying policies.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?
When I think of Cameron and Osborne, all I can think of is their stupid decision to call an EU referendum.
To be fair I think Osborne said it was a stupid idea and Cameron went ahead anyway
I think Cameron thought it would be a rinse-repeat of the Scottish referendum. He got too confident after that, that people would look like they were teetering on the edge of something seismic, but would ultimately vote for the status quo.
Cameron's hubris led him to believe he had won Indyref when in fact his negative campaign (caricatured as too wee, too poor, too stupid) had seen a steady rise in the Yes vote until the last-minute intervention of Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson put the positive case for the union. Hence the similar negative campaign on Brexit: Project Fear.
Sorry - just realised you must be thinking of the Vow which was a Cameron/|Brown/Clegg thing
I don't mind that early estimates are nearly always wrong, but I do mind that they always seem to be wrong in the same direction. Do they not even try to account for this?
It does have political consequences - giving attack lines to oppositions. It does you no good to come back a year later and say, sorry Mr Starmer, the stats were wrong.
Motorist is such a 20th century term. It always makes me think of blokes who wear chamois leather gloves when they get behind the wheel of their Rovers...
Isn't that who Rishi is talking to ?
Exactly. The ones who were doing it in the 1960s and 1970s. And the prematurely senile ones who have signed up to that vision.
And we all know why they wear backless gloves.
To show off their sexy liver spots?
Nope, their hairy palms. Or so I was told by my friend in the 1970s.
Edit: it was a meme then, possibly avant la lettre Dawkinsienne.
Surely hairy palms could only be shown off with frontless gloves?
Sorry, I was mentally referring one sentence too far back! To hide their palms.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
I've used you can put a boat on a ship but not a ship on a boat.
But you can put a ship on a barge. And even boats as large as nuclear missile submarines in the USN and RN.
Somewhat anachronistically Patrick O’Brien taught me that a ship possessed 3 or more masts. I also have a vague memory that a ship had to be commanded by a captain.
You forgot the 'square rigged on all three' bit - and, I think, a bowsprit, though a gaff mizzen sail is also usual, as are fore and aft staysails.
There were honorary captains and Captains RN by personal rank, too, which doesn't help. Quite a few ships were commanded by Lieutenants and Commanders though they got called Captain as an honorific - even in later life, rather confusingly (I know of at least one example from local historical research).
*I have a friend** in the MN who considers the whole yard to be covered in red flags given the initial mess with the cables. Thinks the MCA will be finding issues with them for years to come.
**Who has a phobia of working on RORO, so might be biased
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I'm still going for a Labour majority of 1-20 seats. All think talk of landslides is fanciful, IMO.
Landslides are hard to put a finger on - what counts as a landslide (personally I don’t think 90 seats is one, that’s a “large majority”) and 30+ is a working majority.
It might feel a bit landslidy even at something like a 20 majority, because that means hundreds of Tory seats falling. It means election night visuals will be “Labour gains x” flashing up constantly.
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
It sounds like the British equivalent of Clinton's infamous "three strikes" law. Either way you end up with petty criminals serving, in effect, life sentences. Sure, the guy was a major PITA for the law-abiding community but I'm not sure I want to live in a world without the possibility of reform and redemption.
I would agree that the problem is with the idea that you can lock people up and then forget about them with no path to rehabilitation or redemption. Perhaps it would be helpful if the death penalty is reintroduced. Decide who you are going to take out and who is going to be saved, and once it has been determined that someone falls in to the latter category, reduce the length of the prison sentence and implement a programme of rehabilitation. Putting someone in jail for their entire life with no way out is not 'saving them', it is imposing a form of pscyhological torture on them.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
In the US it's because polling stations are sometimes only accessible by car.
I suppose there will be a similar if smaller effect in the UK.
It is hard not to be shocked every four years by pictures of Americans queueing for hours to vote as if it were an impoverished, newly democratic country where voters would have their thumbs inked.
With charities set up to provide water and blankets to those queueing.
I think there was a case of some black voter areas not having a polling station at all, with their allocated one in a parking lot miles away on the other side of town?
Were those charities' operations not made illegal in some areas, or was that one shame too far?
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
In the US it's because polling stations are sometimes only accessible by car.
I suppose there will be a similar if smaller effect in the UK.
It is hard not to be shocked every four years by pictures of Americans queueing for hours to vote as if it were an impoverished, newly democratic country where voters would have their thumbs inked.
With charities set up to provide water and blankets to those queueing.
I think there was a case of some black voter areas not having a polling station at all, with their allocated one in a parking lot miles away on the other side of town?
Were those charities' operations not made illegal in some areas, or was that one shame too far?
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I'm still going for a Labour majority of 1-20 seats. All think talk of landslides is fanciful, IMO.
Landslides are hard to put a finger on - what counts as a landslide (personally I don’t think 90 seats is one, that’s a “large majority”) and 30+ is a working majority.
It might feel a bit landslidy even at something like a 20 majority, because that means hundreds of Tory seats falling. It means election night visuals will be “Labour gains x” flashing up constantly.
A "landslide" to me is a triple digit majority. Since 1945 I'd say there's only been five genuine landslides (1945, 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001)
2024 will like 2010 in reverse, I think. Lots of seats will fall and the government will change but Labour will do very well to get to 326.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
In the US it's because polling stations are sometimes only accessible by car.
I suppose there will be a similar if smaller effect in the UK.
It is hard not to be shocked every four years by pictures of Americans queueing for hours to vote as if it were an impoverished, newly democratic country where voters would have their thumbs inked.
With charities set up to provide water and blankets to those queueing.
I think there was a case of some black voter areas not having a polling station at all, with their allocated one in a parking lot miles away on the other side of town?
Were those charities' operations not made illegal in some areas, or was that one shame too far?
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I'm still going for a Labour majority of 1-20 seats. All think talk of landslides is fanciful, IMO.
Landslides are hard to put a finger on - what counts as a landslide (personally I don’t think 90 seats is one, that’s a “large majority”) and 30+ is a working majority.
It might feel a bit landslidy even at something like a 20 majority, because that means hundreds of Tory seats falling. It means election night visuals will be “Labour gains x” flashing up constantly.
A "landslide" to me is a triple digit majority. Since 1945 I'd say there's only been five genuine landslides (1945, 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001)
2024 will like 2010 in reverse, I think. Lots of seats will fall and the government will change but Labour will do very well to get to 326.
Landslide to me also means the ground shifts - which rules out 1987 and 2001.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey. In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
Motorist is such a 20th century term. It always makes me think of blokes who wear chamois leather gloves when they get behind the wheel of their Rovers...
Isn't that who Rishi is talking to ?
Exactly. The ones who were doing it in the 1960s and 1970s. And the prematurely senile ones who have signed up to that vision.
And we all know why they wear backless gloves.
To show off their sexy liver spots?
Nope, their hairy palms. Or so I was told by my friend in the 1970s.
Edit: it was a meme then, possibly avant la lettre Dawkinsienne.
Surely hairy palms could only be shown off with frontless gloves?
Sorry, I was mentally referring one sentence too far back! To hide their palms.
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
It sounds like the British equivalent of Clinton's infamous "three strikes" law. Either way you end up with petty criminals serving, in effect, life sentences. Sure, the guy was a major PITA for the law-abiding community but I'm not sure I want to live in a world without the possibility of reform and redemption.
I would agree that the problem is with the idea that you can lock people up and then forget about them with no path to rehabilitation or redemption. Perhaps it would be helpful if the death penalty is reintroduced. Decide who you are going to take out and who is going to be saved, and once it has been determined that someone falls in to the latter category, reduce the length of the prison sentence and implement a programme of rehabilitation. Putting someone in jail for their entire life with no way out is not 'saving them', it is imposing a form of pscyhological torture on them.
Maybe sharia law is better. Chop a hand off
I’d rather suffer that than a lifetime in jail. And it’s also a fairly severe deterrent
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
It sounds like the British equivalent of Clinton's infamous "three strikes" law. Either way you end up with petty criminals serving, in effect, life sentences. Sure, the guy was a major PITA for the law-abiding community but I'm not sure I want to live in a world without the possibility of reform and redemption.
I would agree that the problem is with the idea that you can lock people up and then forget about them with no path to rehabilitation or redemption. Perhaps it would be helpful if the death penalty is reintroduced. Decide who you are going to take out and who is going to be saved, and once it has been determined that someone falls in to the latter category, reduce the length of the prison sentence and implement a programme of rehabilitation. Putting someone in jail for their entire life with no way out is not 'saving them', it is imposing a form of pscyhological torture on them.
Maybe sharia law is better. Chop a hand off
I’d rather suffer that than a lifetime in jail. And it’s also a fairly severe deterrent
I’m reminded of the cartoon of the Arab with stitches all round his wrist. His friend was quoted as saying “I see you won your appeal!”
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
I think one problem with this war is that the US strategy seemed to be to support Ukraine in order to blunt Russian military capability, but now it seems to be having the opposite effect, the Russian army has become more effective. I don't know what the answer is to all of this, but it does seem to me that a lot of people who want to prolong the war or escalate it are not thinking through the consequences of what happens if this strategy fails.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey. In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
Doom loop.
You just need one dangerous or careless driver and then suddenly everyone feels the need to drive their kids to school. The schools often inadvertently advance this by warning children who walk or cycle to school to take care.
A theory for the growing size of SUVs too. Darwinism.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Russia is a big petrol station. The key is oil exports. China doesn’t buy that much Russian oil. India seems more of a problem - and Modi more activity pro Russia than Xi. The oil price cap was working well, and even now Russian oil trades at a significant discount. But enforcement of the cap through tacking dark exports is getting lax.
Russian oil production also relies heavily on engineering equipment and expertise that China simply doesn’t have (largely because it doesn't have a meaningful domestic oil and gas industry). This has already damaged the efficiency of extraction and processing there, but they can manage it if the oil price remains high. Stronger policing of dual use technologies would help a lot, but the real villain here is Saudi Arabia, not China.
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
To some extent it's already a thing, because of the fashion for DNA genealogy (which I think is insane but never mind) which has already brouight up quite a few such linkages. It's brought up some very dodgy practices (but not the only reason for their exposure of course).
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
I think one problem with this war is that the US strategy seemed to be to support Ukraine in order to blunt Russian military capability, but now it seems to be having the opposite effect, the Russian army has become more effective. I don't know what the answer is to all of this, but it does seem to me that a lot of people who want to prolong the war or escalate it are not thinking through the consequences of what happens if this strategy fails.
Yes, America’s softly softly approach is why we ended up with millions of mines across the South of Ukraine. The US (and Europe) has allowed Russia breathing space. Rather like low dose antibiotics, that degrade an infection for a while before a more resistant strain emerges. Same with sanctions.
Still, I think we all consistently oscillate between overestimating and underestimating Russia. And likewise Ukraine. It’s possible in a single sweep of any day’s tweets to leave feeling either hugely optimistic or deeply pessimistic.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Logistics wins wars.
The West needs to really try and crack down on every way that sanctions are being avoided and up even more the support to Ukraine. Give Ukraine everything that they need.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I'm still going for a Labour majority of 1-20 seats. All think talk of landslides is fanciful, IMO.
Landslides are hard to put a finger on - what counts as a landslide (personally I don’t think 90 seats is one, that’s a “large majority”) and 30+ is a working majority.
It might feel a bit landslidy even at something like a 20 majority, because that means hundreds of Tory seats falling. It means election night visuals will be “Labour gains x” flashing up constantly.
A "landslide" to me is a triple digit majority. Since 1945 I'd say there's only been five genuine landslides (1945, 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001)
2024 will like 2010 in reverse, I think. Lots of seats will fall and the government will change but Labour will do very well to get to 326.
Landslide to me also means the ground shifts - which rules out 1987 and 2001.
Yes, 2001 didn’t feel like a landslide. There was a small swing to the conservatives. Landslides really feel like it when there are dozens of normally safe seats switching, and big arcs being described on the swingometer.
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
To some extent it's already a thing, because of the fashion for DNA genealogy (which I think is insane but never mind) which has already brouight up quite a few such linkages. It's brought up some very dodgy practices (but not the only reason for their exposure of course).
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Russia is a big petrol station. The key is oil exports. China doesn’t buy that much Russian oil. India seems more of a problem - and Modi more activity pro Russia than Xi. The oil price cap was working well, and even now Russian oil trades at a significant discount. But enforcement of the cap through tacking dark exports is getting lax.
Russian oil production also relies heavily on engineering equipment and expertise that China simply doesn’t have (largely because it doesn't have a meaningful domestic oil and gas industry). This has already damaged the efficiency of extraction and processing there, but they can manage it if the oil price remains high. Stronger policing of dual use technologies would help a lot, but the real villain here is Saudi Arabia, not China.
Like I said, we no longer run the world
Saudi, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil…. These are all big countries - indeed the biggest - andp they can all tell us to fuck off. And they do
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey. In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
Well, #1 social pressure. You will be looked at quite askance - not least by the school - if you leave your child to make his or her own way to school. Where I am, the cut off seems to be about the age of 10. Indeed, the school need written permission from parents for children to be released to go home independently, and will only give it for year 6 children. I'd agree with you that my 8 year old could get herself to school perfectly happily, but social convention does not.
But also #2, going to work. If parents are going to accompany their children to school (see #1, above), almost always they will then have to go on to work. Most schools won't accept children before 8.45 unless you pay out for breakfast club, and many parents then have to get to work ASAP, certainly if they work a traditional 9-5. For many, the only way to achieve this is to drive to school, drop the child off, and drive on from there. There isn't the leeway in the day for ten minutes walk home again to pick the car up.
Parents are often lambasted for being lazy: "Why don't you just get up ten minutes earlier?" But it's not the time BEFORE drop off which needs to be shaved; it's the time between drop off and starting work.
Far too many in government, and indeed in education, seem to think that we live in a world in which mothers drop their kids off and then return home to please themselves until pickup times.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Russia is a big petrol station. The key is oil exports. China doesn’t buy that much Russian oil. India seems more of a problem - and Modi more activity pro Russia than Xi. The oil price cap was working well, and even now Russian oil trades at a significant discount. But enforcement of the cap through tacking dark exports is getting lax.
Russian oil production also relies heavily on engineering equipment and expertise that China simply doesn’t have (largely because it doesn't have a meaningful domestic oil and gas industry). This has already damaged the efficiency of extraction and processing there, but they can manage it if the oil price remains high. Stronger policing of dual use technologies would help a lot, but the real villain here is Saudi Arabia, not China.
Like I said, we no longer run the world
Saudi, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil…. These are all big countries - indeed the biggest - andp they can all tell us to fuck off. And they do
OPEC actually had more leverage in the 1970s than it does now, thanks to huge progress in energy and resource efficiency.
We haven't run the world for decades but there is a huge amount more the very large coalition of countries opposing Russia (by no means only in the "West") can and should do.
Russia has an economy the size of Spain's, and extremely undiversified. It is highly economically vulnerable.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Logistics wins wars.
The West needs to really try and crack down on every way that sanctions are being avoided and up even more the support to Ukraine. Give Ukraine everything that they need.
It’s nonsense. Delusional late imperial thinking
How do we “crack down” on India and Saudi Arabia? China and Brazil? We aren’t the world’s policeman any more, not even the USA
We can use soft power and diplomacy and try and coax these nations to a more anti-Putin stance - that might work. But the days when the west could go round bossing the world economy are long gone
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
If those donors were assured of anonymity when they donated, then it's clearly a bad thing. It's reneging on a promise - I don't think the issue needs to be much more complex than that.
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
If those donors were assured of anonymity when they donated, then it's clearly a bad thing. It's reneging on a promise - I don't think the issue needs to be much more complex than that.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
Where would you build motorways though? I can only think of a few routes in the north that need upgrading but haven't been, namely the A1 north of Newcastle, A69 to Carlisle and Sheffield to Manchester (A57). I think upgrades are valid but totally new motorways where from and to? Plus as it directly affects me I'd upgrade the A595 to a dual carriage way from Carlisle to Barrow. I may be showing my north and Cumbria biases here though.
I think that's why 2019 felt like a landslide, while the majority wasn't up there with some of the other mentioned above. Some of the red wall seats changing to Tory were astonishing (although part of a trend, at least in hindsight).
No matter who you support or want in power the next year to 18 months are sure to be fascinating and hopefully lucrative for the good folk of PB. I fondly recall the playing off of two different bookies with different odds in two horse races for guaranteed income.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Russia is a big petrol station. The key is oil exports. China doesn’t buy that much Russian oil. India seems more of a problem - and Modi more activity pro Russia than Xi. The oil price cap was working well, and even now Russian oil trades at a significant discount. But enforcement of the cap through tacking dark exports is getting lax.
Russian oil production also relies heavily on engineering equipment and expertise that China simply doesn’t have (largely because it doesn't have a meaningful domestic oil and gas industry). This has already damaged the efficiency of extraction and processing there, but they can manage it if the oil price remains high. Stronger policing of dual use technologies would help a lot, but the real villain here is Saudi Arabia, not China.
Like I said, we no longer run the world
Saudi, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil…. These are all big countries - indeed the biggest - andp they can all tell us to fuck off. And they do
OPEC actually had more leverage in the 1970s than it does now, thanks to huge progress in energy and resource efficiency.
We haven't run the world for decades but there is a huge amount more the very large coalition of countries opposing Russia (by no means only in the "West") can and should do.
Russia has an economy the size of Spain's, and extremely undiversified. It is highly economically vulnerable.
Using GDP by PPP (perhaps a better metric in assessing military strength) Russia has the 6th biggest economy in the world, twice as big as Spain’s
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
If those donors were assured of anonymity when they donated, then it's clearly a bad thing. It's reneging on a promise - I don't think the issue needs to be much more complex than that.
They weren't. The opposite.
Ah, I see. So this change in the law actually took place years ago. Seems fair enough then.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Logistics wins wars.
The West needs to really try and crack down on every way that sanctions are being avoided and up even more the support to Ukraine. Give Ukraine everything that they need.
It’s nonsense. Delusional late imperial thinking
How do we “crack down” on India and Saudi Arabia? China and Brazil? We aren’t the world’s policeman any more, not even the USA
We can use soft power and diplomacy and try and coax these nations to a more anti-Putin stance - that might work. But the days when the west could go round bossing the world economy are long gone
There are significant financial levers at the disposal of the US and EU, which they are partially but not fully using. You don't have to be a late imperial thinker to recognise where the West does have power. We all recognise how one economy - Saudi - has significant leverage, as indeed many of us thought Russia did with its gas exports to Europe, and is now also realised about Taiwan and its dominance of chip manufacture. Those are much smaller economies than the US let alone the combined G7 and EU.
The dependency of heavy industry globally on a small number of German headquartered engineering companies is eye watering. As is the very stable portion of financial transactions traded in USD.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Logistics wins wars.
The West needs to really try and crack down on every way that sanctions are being avoided and up even more the support to Ukraine. Give Ukraine everything that they need.
It’s nonsense. Delusional late imperial thinking
How do we “crack down” on India and Saudi Arabia? China and Brazil? We aren’t the world’s policeman any more, not even the USA
We can use soft power and diplomacy and try and coax these nations to a more anti-Putin stance - that might work. But the days when the west could go round bossing the world economy are long gone
As an example, Russia are using Iranian-made drones that are filled with Western components. We need to trace how those components have got there and take action to stop it.
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
All the money is spent down south , we don't get new roads or railways. Lucky to get a pothole filled in a couple of years.
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
If those donors were assured of anonymity when they donated, then it's clearly a bad thing. It's reneging on a promise - I don't think the issue needs to be much more complex than that.
They weren't. The opposite.
Ah, I see. So this change in the law actually took place years ago. Seems fair enough then.
Yep, first people born since the change in law coming of age and now able to actually track the donor (IIUC).
I remember much fuss when the law was changed, fears no one would donate etc. Was there actually a change in donation rates?
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Russia is a big petrol station. The key is oil exports. China doesn’t buy that much Russian oil. India seems more of a problem - and Modi more activity pro Russia than Xi. The oil price cap was working well, and even now Russian oil trades at a significant discount. But enforcement of the cap through tacking dark exports is getting lax.
Russian oil production also relies heavily on engineering equipment and expertise that China simply doesn’t have (largely because it doesn't have a meaningful domestic oil and gas industry). This has already damaged the efficiency of extraction and processing there, but they can manage it if the oil price remains high. Stronger policing of dual use technologies would help a lot, but the real villain here is Saudi Arabia, not China.
Like I said, we no longer run the world
Saudi, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil…. These are all big countries - indeed the biggest - andp they can all tell us to fuck off. And they do
OPEC actually had more leverage in the 1970s than it does now, thanks to huge progress in energy and resource efficiency.
We haven't run the world for decades but there is a huge amount more the very large coalition of countries opposing Russia (by no means only in the "West") can and should do.
Russia has an economy the size of Spain's, and extremely undiversified. It is highly economically vulnerable.
Using GDP by PPP (perhaps a better metric in assessing military strength) Russia has the 6th biggest economy in the world, twice as big as Spain’s
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey. In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
Well, #1 social pressure. You will be looked at quite askance - not least by the school - if you leave your child to make his or her own way to school. Where I am, the cut off seems to be about the age of 10. Indeed, the school need written permission from parents for children to be released to go home independently, and will only give it for year 6 children. I'd agree with you that my 8 year old could get herself to school perfectly happily, but social convention does not.
But also #2, going to work. If parents are going to accompany their children to school (see #1, above), almost always they will then have to go on to work. Most schools won't accept children before 8.45 unless you pay out for breakfast club, and many parents then have to get to work ASAP, certainly if they work a traditional 9-5. For many, the only way to achieve this is to drive to school, drop the child off, and drive on from there. There isn't the leeway in the day for ten minutes walk home again to pick the car up.
Parents are often lambasted for being lazy: "Why don't you just get up ten minutes earlier?" But it's not the time BEFORE drop off which needs to be shaved; it's the time between drop off and starting work.
Far too many in government, and indeed in education, seem to think that we live in a world in which mothers drop their kids off and then return home to please themselves until pickup times.
We're a mile and a bit from my kids' school (primary) and they scoot there with me (on my bike) on a Friday.
To say the school is geared to car drop-off is a huge understatement. It's actually quite hard to gain entry to the school without a car. Luckily the security guys know us and help stop other parents in their tanks running us over.
All that being said - @Cookie is right, particularly on point 2. And explains the desperate and dangerous driving you often encounter round schools.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
I always thought a Korean style armistice was the most likely outcome. Actually, at first, I thought a complete Russian victory was the most likely outcome. But since it became clear that Russia was surprisingly bad at fighting wars and the Ukraine surprisingly good, I've thought Korea. There's just too much Ukraine to take back, and taking territory is hard. That said, a Korea style outcome covers a range of possibilities, some of which are actually, strategically, quite good for Ukraine, even if very very bad for the Ukrainians who end up on the wrong side of the border. Ukraine could become a fully fledged part of the west under the protection of NATO. And while it's hard to see it recovering all of its territory, it's conceivable now to see it ending up recovering some of the strategically most important bits.
Meanwhile, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of men, its place in the world economy, abandonment of its brightest and best and what was left of its reputation, Russia gains some battered and bleak ex-industrial areas.
I'm not saying we in the west should settle for this. But while I find it hard to see Ukraine winning, I find it easy to see an outcome which is much better for Ukraine than Russia.
That will be a shit solution that just gives Russia to get built back up to invade again. Too many surrender monkeys about , West needs to get a backbone and give Ukraine the weapons to blow the arseholes back to Russia.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
Whats not been factored in is the Lib Dems chances depend to much degree on what’s in Labours manifesto .
If there’s anything in there that frightens those likely to be more switchable in terms of Tory to Lib Dem in those southern seats .
Vote Lib Dem get Labour and that horrible policy .
I think both the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos will be anodyne.
They'll continue to sit back and let the Tories self destruct.
But the people who hate the Tories don't want anodyne. They want meaningful change - not just a new occupant in Downing Street. Yes, they'd take that - but don't expect them to stay happy for long when nothing much changes.
The economy is not in a position to make much change. Starmer will find out what Truss found out - Mr Market won't let you make meaningful changes. Especially if he has a tiny majority - or more likely, no majority at all.
Unless a lot of it is just Twitter piss & wind and it's actually about all the narcissism of small differences.
The meaningful stuff comes in terms of younger people finding home, jobs, money and opportunities.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I'm still going for a Labour majority of 1-20 seats. All think talk of landslides is fanciful, IMO.
Landslides are hard to put a finger on - what counts as a landslide (personally I don’t think 90 seats is one, that’s a “large majority”) and 30+ is a working majority.
It might feel a bit landslidy even at something like a 20 majority, because that means hundreds of Tory seats falling. It means election night visuals will be “Labour gains x” flashing up constantly.
A "landslide" to me is a triple digit majority. Since 1945 I'd say there's only been five genuine landslides (1945, 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001)
2024 will like 2010 in reverse, I think. Lots of seats will fall and the government will change but Labour will do very well to get to 326.
I feel that the best outcome for the country will be Labour with a very small majority, or even NOC. Large majorities breed arrogance and increased tribalism.
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
To some extent it's already a thing, because of the fashion for DNA genealogy (which I think is insane but never mind) which has already brouight up quite a few such linkages. It's brought up some very dodgy practices (but not the only reason for their exposure of course).
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
If those donors were assured of anonymity when they donated, then it's clearly a bad thing. It's reneging on a promise - I don't think the issue needs to be much more complex than that.
They weren't. The opposite.
Ah, I see. So this change in the law actually took place years ago. Seems fair enough then.
Yep, first people born since the change in law coming of age and now able to actually track the donor (IIUC).
I remember much fuss when the law was changed, fears no one would donate etc. Was there actually a change in donation rates?
Initially yes but they recovered back to "normal" fairly quickly.
I wonder if this actually represents a bit of value.
A little poll bounce, the 'green woke blob under the bed' seeming to cut through a bit. Why not announce at conference? Not like he has much in the way of actual policies to enact in 2024.
I'm probably crediting Team Sunak with a bit too much nous there, but being able to decide when an election will be is a strategic advantage.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
Another good reason for developing the Rosebank oil field. The more oil and gas we can produce, the less that the west needs Russian oil and gas.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
I always thought a Korean style armistice was the most likely outcome.
50-100k US/NATO troops permanently stationed there ? Possibly.
Far cheaper to beat the arseholes now rather than end up back in cold war with huge expense of funding massive bases to enrich Poland and other such countries. Either sort them out now or leave the east of europe to get taken over bit by bit.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey. In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
Well, #1 social pressure. You will be looked at quite askance - not least by the school - if you leave your child to make his or her own way to school. Where I am, the cut off seems to be about the age of 10. Indeed, the school need written permission from parents for children to be released to go home independently, and will only give it for year 6 children. I'd agree with you that my 8 year old could get herself to school perfectly happily, but social convention does not.
But also #2, going to work. If parents are going to accompany their children to school (see #1, above), almost always they will then have to go on to work. Most schools won't accept children before 8.45 unless you pay out for breakfast club, and many parents then have to get to work ASAP, certainly if they work a traditional 9-5. For many, the only way to achieve this is to drive to school, drop the child off, and drive on from there. There isn't the leeway in the day for ten minutes walk home again to pick the car up.
Parents are often lambasted for being lazy: "Why don't you just get up ten minutes earlier?" But it's not the time BEFORE drop off which needs to be shaved; it's the time between drop off and starting work.
Far too many in government, and indeed in education, seem to think that we live in a world in which mothers drop their kids off and then return home to please themselves until pickup times.
We're a mile and a bit from my kids' school (primary) and they scoot there with me (on my bike) on a Friday.
To say the school is geared to car drop-off is a huge understatement. It's actually quite hard to gain entry to the school without a car. Luckily the security guys know us and help stop other parents in their tanks running us over.
All that being said - @Cookie is right, particularly on point 2. And explains the desperate and dangerous driving you often encounter round schools.
I'm surprised at that - most primary schools round here are pretty anti-car (not for ideological reasons, I don't think, so much as that they simply don't have the space). I can't think of any primary schools hereabouts with actual car parking - they all date from a time when you simply wouldn't think to provide car parking for parents. Those who park simply have to find space on the street. Is your kids' school a private school?
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
All the money is spent down south , we don't get new roads or railways. Lucky to get a pothole filled in a couple of years.
PB's resident Mr Thicky-No-Brains is talking complete bollox as ever. Sad thing is the dribbling old fool actually believes the crap he spouts, but sadly for him and his hate-mongering divisive loser nationalists, he is wrong.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
I think one problem with this war is that the US strategy seemed to be to support Ukraine in order to blunt Russian military capability, but now it seems to be having the opposite effect, the Russian army has become more effective. I don't know what the answer is to all of this, but it does seem to me that a lot of people who want to prolong the war or escalate it are not thinking through the consequences of what happens if this strategy fails.
Not sure where you see Russian army becoming more effective. They are useless, would struggle to beat a carpet.
I wonder if this actually represents a bit of value.
A little poll bounce, the 'green woke blob under the bed' seeming to cut through a bit. Why not announce at conference? Not like he has much in the way of actual policies to enact in 2024.
I'm probably crediting Team Sunak with a bit too much nous there, but being able to decide when an election will be is a strategic advantage.
Its hard to see it. If they were a few points behind going into conference and then had a bounce maybe but there are way, way adrift.
There is another factor coming up too - there is an upcoming drama "Partygate". The trailers have shown riotous parties (at No. 10). Now I think that most of the parties were pathetic affairs (like the ones there are photos of) but I accept that (a) that's irrelevant (b) most people think it was far worse than that and lastly I think this is likely to be reminding people just how annoyed they were and are by partygate, just as the Tories have their conference. A cynic might note the timing...
So no, I don't think 25-1 is value. Chance of May 2024, most likely Oct 2024, but no chance 2023.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
Another good reason for developing the Rosebank oil field. The more oil and gas we can produce, the less that the west needs Russian oil and gas.
Unless it's ringfenced to UK / NATO use, it will simply go on the global market and have a negligible impact on oil prices.
It's certainly a good reason for Western to redouble their efforts to wean themselves off fossil fuels.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Russia is a big petrol station. The key is oil exports. China doesn’t buy that much Russian oil. India seems more of a problem - and Modi more activity pro Russia than Xi. The oil price cap was working well, and even now Russian oil trades at a significant discount. But enforcement of the cap through tacking dark exports is getting lax.
Russian oil production also relies heavily on engineering equipment and expertise that China simply doesn’t have (largely because it doesn't have a meaningful domestic oil and gas industry). This has already damaged the efficiency of extraction and processing there, but they can manage it if the oil price remains high. Stronger policing of dual use technologies would help a lot, but the real villain here is Saudi Arabia, not China.
Like I said, we no longer run the world
Saudi, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil…. These are all big countries - indeed the biggest - andp they can all tell us to fuck off. And they do
OPEC actually had more leverage in the 1970s than it does now, thanks to huge progress in energy and resource efficiency.
We haven't run the world for decades but there is a huge amount more the very large coalition of countries opposing Russia (by no means only in the "West") can and should do.
Russia has an economy the size of Spain's, and extremely undiversified. It is highly economically vulnerable.
Using GDP by PPP (perhaps a better metric in assessing military strength) Russia has the 6th biggest economy in the world, twice as big as Spain’s
PPP isn't very useful when you have to import everything other than basic foodstuffs and hydrocarbons.
I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey. In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
Well, #1 social pressure. You will be looked at quite askance - not least by the school - if you leave your child to make his or her own way to school. Where I am, the cut off seems to be about the age of 10. Indeed, the school need written permission from parents for children to be released to go home independently, and will only give it for year 6 children. I'd agree with you that my 8 year old could get herself to school perfectly happily, but social convention does not.
But also #2, going to work. If parents are going to accompany their children to school (see #1, above), almost always they will then have to go on to work. Most schools won't accept children before 8.45 unless you pay out for breakfast club, and many parents then have to get to work ASAP, certainly if they work a traditional 9-5. For many, the only way to achieve this is to drive to school, drop the child off, and drive on from there. There isn't the leeway in the day for ten minutes walk home again to pick the car up.
Parents are often lambasted for being lazy: "Why don't you just get up ten minutes earlier?" But it's not the time BEFORE drop off which needs to be shaved; it's the time between drop off and starting work.
Far too many in government, and indeed in education, seem to think that we live in a world in which mothers drop their kids off and then return home to please themselves until pickup times.
We're a mile and a bit from my kids' school (primary) and they scoot there with me (on my bike) on a Friday.
To say the school is geared to car drop-off is a huge understatement. It's actually quite hard to gain entry to the school without a car. Luckily the security guys know us and help stop other parents in their tanks running us over.
All that being said - @Cookie is right, particularly on point 2. And explains the desperate and dangerous driving you often encounter round schools.
I'm surprised at that - most primary schools round here are pretty anti-car (not for ideological reasons, I don't think, so much as that they simply don't have the space). I can't think of any primary schools hereabouts with actual car parking - they all date from a time when you simply wouldn't think to provide car parking for parents. Those who park simply have to find space on the street. Is your kids' school a private school?
No but is a Jewish school so takes kids from across south Manchester. Chaotic driving seems fairly constant around all schools at pick-up-drop-off round here though.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
I've used you can put a boat on a ship but not a ship on a boat.
But you can put a ship on a barge. And even boats as large as nuclear missile submarines in the USN and RN.
Somewhat anachronistically Patrick O’Brien taught me that a ship possessed 3 or more masts. I also have a vague memory that a ship had to be commanded by a captain.
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
All the money is spent down south , we don't get new roads or railways. Lucky to get a pothole filled in a couple of years.
PB's resident Mr Thicky-No-Brains is talking complete bollox as ever. Sad thing is the dribbling old fool actually believes the crap he spouts, but sadly for him and his hate-mongering divisive loser nationalists, he is wrong.
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
All the money is spent down south , we don't get new roads or railways. Lucky to get a pothole filled in a couple of years.
PB's resident Mr Thicky-No-Brains is talking complete bollox as ever. Sad thing is the dribbling old fool actually believes the crap he spouts, but sadly for him and his hate-mongering divisive loser nationalists, he is wrong.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey. In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
Well, #1 social pressure. You will be looked at quite askance - not least by the school - if you leave your child to make his or her own way to school. Where I am, the cut off seems to be about the age of 10. Indeed, the school need written permission from parents for children to be released to go home independently, and will only give it for year 6 children. I'd agree with you that my 8 year old could get herself to school perfectly happily, but social convention does not.
But also #2, going to work. If parents are going to accompany their children to school (see #1, above), almost always they will then have to go on to work. Most schools won't accept children before 8.45 unless you pay out for breakfast club, and many parents then have to get to work ASAP, certainly if they work a traditional 9-5. For many, the only way to achieve this is to drive to school, drop the child off, and drive on from there. There isn't the leeway in the day for ten minutes walk home again to pick the car up.
Parents are often lambasted for being lazy: "Why don't you just get up ten minutes earlier?" But it's not the time BEFORE drop off which needs to be shaved; it's the time between drop off and starting work.
Far too many in government, and indeed in education, seem to think that we live in a world in which mothers drop their kids off and then return home to please themselves until pickup times.
We're a mile and a bit from my kids' school (primary) and they scoot there with me (on my bike) on a Friday.
To say the school is geared to car drop-off is a huge understatement. It's actually quite hard to gain entry to the school without a car. Luckily the security guys know us and help stop other parents in their tanks running us over.
All that being said - @Cookie is right, particularly on point 2. And explains the desperate and dangerous driving you often encounter round schools.
I'm surprised at that - most primary schools round here are pretty anti-car (not for ideological reasons, I don't think, so much as that they simply don't have the space). I can't think of any primary schools hereabouts with actual car parking - they all date from a time when you simply wouldn't think to provide car parking for parents. Those who park simply have to find space on the street. Is your kids' school a private school?
No but is a Jewish school so takes kids from across south Manchester. Chaotic driving seems fairly constant around all schools at pick-up-drop-off round here though.
Ah, that makes sense! (And also, depressingly, the security. And also why in a densely populated area your school is over a mile away.) I suspect I know the school you mean - I knew one or two people who went there when I was a child.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Logistics wins wars.
The West needs to really try and crack down on every way that sanctions are being avoided and up even more the support to Ukraine. Give Ukraine everything that they need.
They need more people of fighting age who still have two legs. Team America: World Police can't and won't give them that.
The conscription efforts in Ukraine are deeply unpopular, systemically corrupt and becoming less effective. The same goes for Russia but they are trawling a much bigger pool.
It's becoming like the American Civil War in some ways. 'Hard War' and all that.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
In the US it's because polling stations are sometimes only accessible by car.
I suppose there will be a similar if smaller effect in the UK.
In the UK most polling stations are an easy walk from the voters house, and as people with no car are used to getting around without using the car, reaching the polling station should not really be a problem. In rural constituencies some voters might need to make a car journey but almost all people who don't even live in a village are going to have a car anyway.
The problem in the USA is that so many cities are designed to be actively hostile to pedestrians, so most peple are realistically forced to drive to a polling station.
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
The west no longer controls the world economy. Nowhere near it. So sanctions are much less effective than they would have been even 10 years ago
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
Logistics wins wars.
The West needs to really try and crack down on every way that sanctions are being avoided and up even more the support to Ukraine. Give Ukraine everything that they need.
They need more people of fighting age who still have two legs. Team America: World Police can't and won't give them that.
The conscription efforts in Ukraine are deeply unpopular, systemically corrupt and becoming less effective. The same goes for Russia but they are trawling a much bigger pool.
It's becoming like the American Civil War in some ways. 'Hard War' and all that.
Shoigu reckons the SMO will go on until 2025.
Is this ne news straight from the Kremlin's mouth?
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
All the money is spent down south , we don't get new roads or railways. Lucky to get a pothole filled in a couple of years.
PB's resident Mr Thicky-No-Brains is talking complete bollox as ever. Sad thing is the dribbling old fool actually believes the crap he spouts, but sadly for him and his hate-mongering divisive loser nationalists, he is wrong.
Comments
I suppose there will be a similar if smaller effect in the UK.
There were honorary captains and Captains RN by personal rank, too, which doesn't help. Quite a few ships were commanded by Lieutenants and Commanders though they got called Captain as an honorific - even in later life, rather confusingly (I know of at least one example from local historical research).
Of course, if Trump wins in 2024, that changes the landscape considerably for the poorer.
BBC News - UK economy grew faster than estimated since Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66957412
I think there was a case of some black voter areas not having a polling station at all, with their allocated one in a parking lot miles away on the other side of town?
But I still make October 2024 strong favourite.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992
Brown also made lots of promises as well at about the same time but as he wasn't responsible (in any sense) ...
It does have political consequences - giving attack lines to oppositions. It does you no good to come back a year later and say, sorry Mr Starmer, the stats were wrong.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-66945640
*I have a friend** in the MN who considers the whole yard to be covered in red flags given the initial mess with the cables. Thinks the MCA will be finding issues with them for years to come.
**Who has a phobia of working on RORO, so might be biased
It might feel a bit landslidy even at something like a 20 majority, because that means hundreds of Tory seats falling. It means election night visuals will be “Labour gains x” flashing up constantly.
As long as China - the world’s biggest manufacturer, biggest trader, biggest economy (in PPP terms) is willing to support Russia then there’s not much we can really do. And there is zero sign of Beijing abandoning Putin
2024 will like 2010 in reverse, I think. Lots of seats will fall and the government will change but Labour will do very well to get to 326.
In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
I’d rather suffer that than a lifetime in jail. And it’s also a fairly severe deterrent
A small happy story for a change.
His friend was quoted as saying “I see you won your appeal!”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66934678
An enlightened change in the law, or no good deed goes unpunished?
You just need one dangerous or careless driver and then suddenly everyone feels the need to drive their kids to school. The schools often inadvertently advance this by warning children who walk or cycle to school to take care.
A theory for the growing size of SUVs too. Darwinism.
Russian oil production also relies heavily on engineering equipment and expertise that China simply doesn’t have (largely because it doesn't have a meaningful domestic oil and gas industry). This has already damaged the efficiency of extraction and processing there, but they can manage it if the oil price remains high. Stronger policing of dual use technologies would help a lot, but the real villain here is Saudi Arabia, not China.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/26/strange-but-ultimately-positive-genetic-discovery-reveals-up-to-1000-relatives-linked-to-prolific-sperm-donor
Still, I think we all consistently oscillate between overestimating and underestimating Russia. And likewise Ukraine. It’s possible in a single sweep of any day’s tweets to leave feeling either hugely optimistic or deeply pessimistic.
The West needs to really try and crack down on every way that sanctions are being avoided and up even more the support to Ukraine. Give Ukraine everything that they need.
Saudi, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil…. These are all big countries - indeed the biggest - andp they can all tell us to fuck off. And they do
But also #2, going to work. If parents are going to accompany their children to school (see #1, above), almost always they will then have to go on to work. Most schools won't accept children before 8.45 unless you pay out for breakfast club, and many parents then have to get to work ASAP, certainly if they work a traditional 9-5. For many, the only way to achieve this is to drive to school, drop the child off, and drive on from there. There isn't the leeway in the day for ten minutes walk home again to pick the car up.
Parents are often lambasted for being lazy: "Why don't you just get up ten minutes earlier?" But it's not the time BEFORE drop off which needs to be shaved; it's the time between drop off and starting work.
Far too many in government, and indeed in education, seem to think that we live in a world in which mothers drop their kids off and then return home to please themselves until pickup times.
We haven't run the world for decades but there is a huge amount more the very large coalition of countries opposing Russia (by no means only in the "West") can and should do.
Russia has an economy the size of Spain's, and extremely undiversified. It is highly economically vulnerable.
How do we “crack down” on India and Saudi Arabia? China and Brazil? We aren’t the world’s policeman any more, not even the USA
We can use soft power and diplomacy and try and coax these nations to a more anti-Putin stance - that might work. But the days when the west could go round bossing the world economy are long gone
I may be showing my north and Cumbria biases here though.
No matter who you support or want in power the next year to 18 months are sure to be fascinating and hopefully lucrative for the good folk of PB. I fondly recall the playing off of two different bookies with different odds in two horse races for guaranteed income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
The dependency of heavy industry globally on a small number of German headquartered engineering companies is eye watering. As is the very stable portion of financial transactions traded in USD.
I remember much fuss when the law was changed, fears no one would donate etc. Was there actually a change in donation rates?
To say the school is geared to car drop-off is a huge understatement. It's actually quite hard to gain entry to the school without a car. Luckily the security guys know us and help stop other parents in their tanks running us over.
All that being said - @Cookie is right, particularly on point 2. And explains the desperate and dangerous driving you often encounter round schools.
The meaningful stuff comes in terms of younger people finding home, jobs, money and opportunities.
Edit: also used by cops to hunt for DNA matches (albeit indirectly, at present).
I wonder if this actually represents a bit of value.
A little poll bounce, the 'green woke blob under the bed' seeming to cut through a bit. Why not announce at conference? Not like he has much in the way of actual policies to enact in 2024.
I'm probably crediting Team Sunak with a bit too much nous there, but being able to decide when an election will be is a strategic advantage.
To suspend one absolute roaster could be seen as unfortunate. To suspend three looks like your pathetic culture war channel is imploding.
Only a matter of time till we get the first green hued Tory flier bashing ULEZ and extolling ripping the arse out of the Rosebank field.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1707679055124779062?s=61
https://www.statista.com/statistics/651563/uk-public-spending-per-capita-by-country/
Uber driver just confirmed it. “Traffic is terrible”
I could barely squeeze through the crowds at Paddington. Not for any special event just busy busy busy
This is a good thing
There is another factor coming up too - there is an upcoming drama "Partygate". The trailers have shown riotous parties (at No. 10). Now I think that most of the parties were pathetic affairs (like the ones there are photos of) but I accept that (a) that's irrelevant (b) most people think it was far worse than that and lastly I think this is likely to be reminding people just how annoyed they were and are by partygate, just as the Tories have their conference. A cynic might note the timing...
So no, I don't think 25-1 is value. Chance of May 2024, most likely Oct 2024, but no chance 2023.
It's certainly a good reason for Western to redouble their efforts to wean themselves off fossil fuels.
I’ll try and dig out the link
Tain & Easter Ross (Highland) Council By-Election Result [First Preferences]:
🙋 IND (Ross): 41.5% (New)
🔶 LDM: 24.5% (+3.0)
🎗️ SNP: 18.8% (-11.8)
🌳 CON: 8.4% (-2.2)
🌹 LAB: 3.6% (New)
🌍 GRN: 2.3% (New)
🪽 LBT: 0.9% (New)
HMS Magpie: 37 tons = ship
Archangelsk: 22,000 tons = boat
Just so you don't miss it SCUMBAG.
The conscription efforts in Ukraine are deeply unpopular, systemically corrupt and becoming less effective. The same goes for Russia but they are trawling a much bigger pool.
It's becoming like the American Civil War in some ways. 'Hard War' and all that.
Shoigu reckons the SMO will go on until 2025.
The problem in the USA is that so many cities are designed to be actively hostile to pedestrians, so most peple are realistically forced to drive to a polling station.