Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
When you look at the polling, very few people actually want HS2. How then has the Government not turned scrapping it into a net positive? Surround yourself with grateful NIMBYs. It’s not hard.
Very few people actively wanted it. Fewer still want it crippling after it's half built.
Hmmm. Fair enough. More up to date that what I found. I wonder if we’re also re-entering 90s/00s polling land where an idea being a Tory idea makes it unpopular.
Edit - mind you I bet I could move that dial by stating the price and what else it could pay for. I suspect these are all fragile numbers.
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧 @montie I walked into Conference earlier with @Nigel_Farage He got quite the reception. I'm convinced party members would choose him as leader if they could.
===
Why do you think he is there for first time in years Tim?
'The Green Party of England and Wales has adopted a major new guidance document to assist its disciplinary processes. The new guidance seeks to help the party identify discrimination against LGBT+ people. Within the guidance adopted by the party is a definition of queerphobia.
The party is expected to publish the guidance document – including the definition – in the coming days.
The new guidance has been inserted into the Green Party’s framework for ethics and conduct which is used internally including by the party’s disciplinary bodies.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
You have to park half-on/half-off on little residential streets, or you'll block the road!
When you look at the polling, very few people actually want HS2. How then has the Government not turned scrapping it into a net positive? Surround yourself with grateful NIMBYs. It’s not hard.
Very few people actively wanted it. Fewer still want it crippling after it's half built.
Hmmm. Fair enough. More up to date that what I found. I wonder if we’re also re-entering 90s/00s polling land where an idea being a Tory idea makes it unpopular.
Suspect it's more that, where HS2 is concerned, you can get whatever result you want from polling depending on the slight nuances you apply to the question.
But governments are meant to govern. If we'd polled the about the channel tunnel when it was half built I bet we'd have got similarly confusing results; now, no one seriously questions it.
@montie I walked into Conference earlier with @Nigel_Farage . He got quite the reception. I'm convinced party members would choose him as leader if they could.
The Tory membership is UKIP lite.
Until the Tory leadership deal with it as Starmer has, or Kinnock did, the Tories are destined for a long spell in opposition.
Ordinary decent Tories could help by joining or rejoining the party.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet and are still in power.
In Labour terms Sunak is Callaghan 1978 or Brown 2009, we haven't even got to the Tory Foot or Corbyn yet let alone see them lose.
Remember also Foot led in some early polls in opposition as unemployment rose in the early Thatcher years and Corbyn got a hung parliament in 2017, just because you aren't centrist doesn't mean you don't have support
To take the Norman Lamont distinction, Sunak is definitely in office.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
You have to park half-on/half-off on little residential streets, or you'll block the road!
If you can't park without blocking the pavement or the carriageway then it's an offence to park at all.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Perhaps so, but it is utter rubbish. My street is half on, half off as I keep telling you. And I am in London. There are literally general use parking spaces marked out half on the pavement and half off them. That is the rule on my street.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
"It means that over 45 million of us with passports who gave our images for travel purposes will, without any kind of consent or the ability to object, be part of secret police lineups."
That's not correct. It's stated in HMPO's privacy guidelines that the information in your application is shared with other departments "to help fulfill their aims and objectives".
Manchester seems an odd choice - it’s not exactly renowned for being a Tory-friendly sort of place. Didn’t they poll zero (or maybe one/two) votes in a local byelection up there a few years back?
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
You have to park half-on/half-off on little residential streets, or you'll block the road!
If you can't park without blocking the pavement or the carriageway then it's an offence to park at all.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
I presume that is an exception? Weird.
There are several ‘exceptions’ - so much so that the Highway Code claiming this is a rule is something of a stretch, to say the least.
@montie I walked into Conference earlier with @Nigel_Farage . He got quite the reception. I'm convinced party members would choose him as leader if they could.
The Tory membership is UKIP lite.
Until the Tory leadership deal with it as Starmer has, or Kinnock did, the Tories are destined for a long spell in opposition.
Ordinary decent Tories could help by joining or rejoining the party.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet and are still in power.
In Labour terms Sunak is Callaghan 1978 or Brown 2009, we haven't even got to the Tory Foot or Corbyn yet let alone see them lose.
Remember also Foot led in some early polls in opposition as unemployment rose in the early Thatcher years and Corbyn got a hung parliament in 2017, just because you aren't centrist doesn't mean you don't have support
Don't you agree that ordinary decent Tories could help by joining or rejoining the party. Taking back control?
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There are roads like that near me. You can't get by with a pram or a wheelchair but it's official.
I've selected a "red wall" and "blue wall" local authority areas and have found that car ownership is lower in the red wall. Population density, which is correlated very closely with car ownership, is roughly the same in both "walls" if we exclude London.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
You have to park half-on/half-off on little residential streets, or you'll block the road!
If you can't park without blocking the pavement or the carriageway then it's an offence to park at all.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
I presume that is an exception? Weird.
There are several ‘exceptions’ - so much so that the Highway Code claiming this is a rule is something of a stretch, to say the least.
"Must" is backed up by legislation. You'd have to read the Act.
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
"It means that over 45 million of us with passports who gave our images for travel purposes will, without any kind of consent or the ability to object, be part of secret police lineups."
That's not correct. It's stated in HMPO's privacy guidelines that the information in your application is shared with other departments "to help fulfill their aims and objectives".
But it states: We may share data with business partners, other government departments, law enforcement agencies and local authorities to help fulfil their aims and objectives.
I believe the police are a law enforcement agency (allegedly).
Manchester seems an odd choice - it’s not exactly renowned for being a Tory-friendly sort of place. Didn’t they poll zero (or maybe one/two) votes in a local byelection up there a few years back?
They wanted the symbol of meeting in an enormous old railway station as the backdrop for cancelling HS2 and NPR in the North.
I've selected a "red wall" and "blue wall" local authority areas and have found that car ownership is lower in the red wall. Population density, which is correlated very closely with car ownership, is roughly the same in both "walls" if we exclude London.
My point is that this pro-motoring pivot, along with the cancellation of HS2 in the north, is a core southern seats strategy.
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
"It means that over 45 million of us with passports who gave our images for travel purposes will, without any kind of consent or the ability to object, be part of secret police lineups."
That's not correct. It's stated in HMPO's privacy guidelines that the information in your application is shared with other departments "to help fulfill their aims and objectives".
But it states: We may share data with business partners, other government departments, law enforcement agencies and local authorities to help fulfil their aims and objectives.
I believe the police are a law enforcement agency (allegedly).
I think you just said what I said, unless I am missing something?
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
You have to park half-on/half-off on little residential streets, or you'll block the road!
If you can't park without blocking the pavement or the carriageway then it's an offence to park at all.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
I presume that is an exception? Weird.
There are several ‘exceptions’ - so much so that the Highway Code claiming this is a rule is something of a stretch, to say the least.
"Must" is backed up by legislation. You'd have to read the Act.
I need read no Act to know that the rule on my street, as with many streets in London, is to park half on and half off the pavement. If you park otherwise, you will be promptly issued with a parking ticket for £120 (reduced to £60 for quick payment).
Manchester seems an odd choice - it’s not exactly renowned for being a Tory-friendly sort of place. Didn’t they poll zero (or maybe one/two) votes in a local byelection up there a few years back?
Bit of a boring discussion: found this on the web:
[Except] vehicles parked in places which the local council has exempted from the bans. If you are parking in a street exempted from the ban then there will be bays painted in white indicating where you can park.
So it’s banned in London except where it isn’t, and is in fact the only way you are allowed to park!
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
"It means that over 45 million of us with passports who gave our images for travel purposes will, without any kind of consent or the ability to object, be part of secret police lineups."
That's not correct. It's stated in HMPO's privacy guidelines that the information in your application is shared with other departments "to help fulfill their aims and objectives".
But it states: We may share data with business partners, other government departments, law enforcement agencies and local authorities to help fulfil their aims and objectives.
I believe the police are a law enforcement agency (allegedly).
I think you just said what I said, unless I am missing something?
Sorry. I thought you're "that's not correct" meant you didn't agree that HMPO can share their data with the police. Presumably you mean we did consent? (Not that anybody reads the privacy notice).
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
You have to park half-on/half-off on little residential streets, or you'll block the road!
If you can't park without blocking the pavement or the carriageway then it's an offence to park at all.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
I presume that is an exception? Weird.
There are several ‘exceptions’ - so much so that the Highway Code claiming this is a rule is something of a stretch, to say the least.
"Must" is backed up by legislation. You'd have to read the Act.
I need read no Act to know that the rule on my street, as with many streets in London, is to park half on and half off the pavement. If you park otherwise, you will be promptly issued with a parking ticket for £120 (reduced to £60 for quick payment).
Just looked it up - councils in London can exempt some pavements from the ban. As you're long as you're not blocking a wheelchair/pram, you're fine.
I've selected a "red wall" and "blue wall" local authority areas and have found that car ownership is lower in the red wall. Population density, which is correlated very closely with car ownership, is roughly the same in both "walls" if we exclude London.
My point is that this pro-motoring pivot, along with the cancellation of HS2 in the north, is a core southern seats strategy.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
"It means that over 45 million of us with passports who gave our images for travel purposes will, without any kind of consent or the ability to object, be part of secret police lineups."
That's not correct. It's stated in HMPO's privacy guidelines that the information in your application is shared with other departments "to help fulfill their aims and objectives".
But it states: We may share data with business partners, other government departments, law enforcement agencies and local authorities to help fulfil their aims and objectives.
I believe the police are a law enforcement agency (allegedly).
I think you just said what I said, unless I am missing something?
Sorry. I thought you're "that's not correct" meant you didn't agree that HMPO can share their data with the police. Presumably you mean we did consent? (Not that anybody reads the privacy notice).
Ah, sorry. I meant that the quote I posted first "It means that over 45 million of us..." was not correct. When you applied for a passport, you gave HMPO permission to share the data.
Were they smashing the crockery, puking on the furniture, abusing the barmaids - and getting Daddy to send the money for reparations? I only ask because I saw a film with that plotline once.
I can't remember which guru said it recently, but their theory was that the policy matters a lot less with the public than the vibes- do they sound competent and on my side.
Even if Sunak's plan is correct (and I have profound doubts about that), the last week or so has been an utter train wreck.
When you look at the polling, very few people actually want HS2. How then has the Government not turned scrapping it into a net positive? Surround yourself with grateful NIMBYs. It’s not hard.
Very few people actively wanted it. Fewer still want it crippling after it's half built.
Hmmm. Fair enough. More up to date that what I found. I wonder if we’re also re-entering 90s/00s polling land where an idea being a Tory idea makes it unpopular.
Edit - mind you I bet I could move that dial by stating the price and what else it could pay for. I suspect these are all fragile numbers.
It will also depend on how the question is posed.
"Would you leave HS2 half finished after spending tens of billions ?" is likely to get a somewhat different response to "would you halt HS2 ?"
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
Londoners want, Londoners get.
Crossrail and HS2, on top of our tube, tram and bus network. Thank you very much.
Well at least we appreciate public transport down here. Reading PB at times you’d think out-of-towners would prefer to raze their towns and cities, knocking down any obstacles that prevented them reaching 40mph on their way to a retail park. Or maybe that is just Bart.
I can't remember which guru said it recently, but their theory was that the policy matters a lot less with the public than the vibes- do they sound competent and on my side.
Even if Sunak's plan is correct (and I have profound doubts about that), the last week or so has been an utter train wreck.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
Londoners want, Londoners get.
Crossrail and HS2, on top of our tube, tram and bus network. Thank you very much.
Well at least we appreciate public transport down here. Reading PB at times you’d think out-of-towners would prefer to raze their towns and cities, knocking down any obstacles that prevented them reaching 40mph on their way to a retail park. Or maybe that is just Bart.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
Ah, so it was you that beeped me while tailgating me on a single lane road yesterday, before close-passing with a foot clearance. Glad we cleared that up. Surefire way to wipe out the cycling gene pool.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
Given cyclists tend to be faster, stronger and younger than the rest of the population, you can expect that gene pool to be polluted further still.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Ok, I'm a pedestrian, I fear cars more.
I've been nearly hit by two cyclists who failed to stop at red lights at pedestrian crossings in the last few years (most recently last month).
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Ok, I'm a pedestrian, I fear cars more.
Cars you only deal with when you cross a road. most of the time their is a crossing and 99% percent of drivers tend to observe the rules. Cyclists dont the will thread between you at 20mph because how dare we hold them up. They ride on pavements not designated for their use and if there is a collision tell you its your fault. They need all shooting frankly
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
Given cyclists tend to be faster, stronger and younger than the rest of the population, you can expect that gene pool to be polluted further still.
They are too emasculated by their razor saddles to breed so thankfully they will die out due to crushed scrotums
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Ok, I'm a pedestrian, I fear cars more.
Cars you only deal with when you cross a road. most of the time their is a crossing and 99% percent of drivers tend to observe the rules. Cyclists dont the will thread between you at 20mph because how dare we hold them up. They ride on pavements not designated for their use and if there is a collision tell you its your fault. They need all shooting frankly
“They all need shooting”.
Oh dear, dear, me.
Your prejudices precede you. The guy upthread has shown you the stats. You have just ignored them.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Ok, I'm a pedestrian, I fear cars more.
I’m a pedestrian. I fear cars more.
I’m a pedestrian and I fear cars more, not least because there’s a possibility they’re being driven by a Neanderthal who thinks it’s ok to say “They need all shooting frankly” about people based solely on their mode of transport that day.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Ok, I'm a pedestrian, I fear cars more.
I’m a pedestrian. I fear cars more.
I’m a pedestrian and I fear cars more, not least because there’s a possibility they’re being driven by a Neanderthal who thinks it’s ok to say “They need all shooting frankly” about people based solely on their mode of transport that day.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
That does not give you permission to park partially on the pavement.
That sign shows that those seeking to park their vehicles must use an approved box device under the left hand wheels, so as to create a right to left angle of between 8 and 14 degrees.
It's an architectural thing, and ensures that vehicles' positioning will be in tune with nearby buildings.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
They won't if Northern town redwall voters get improved local bus routes, roads and rail routes instead.
They voted Conservative in 2019, not a single seat in Manchester or Liverpool or Leeds or Bradford voted Conservative even then
Good luck trying to find any bus drivers at the moment. Go Ahead North are on strike because they've discovered bus drivers down south are earning more...
So the transport department has monthly updates on HS2 and would have known about the spiraling costs for years and this would have been relayed to no 11.
I expect Sunak to spin that it’s nothing to do with him and some previous administration is to blame.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Ok, I'm a pedestrian, I fear cars more.
I’m a pedestrian. I fear cars more.
I’m a pedestrian and I fear cars more, not least because there’s a possibility they’re being driven by a Neanderthal who thinks it’s ok to say “They need all shooting frankly” about people based solely on their mode of transport that day.
not a driver nor owned or driven a car for fifteen odd years though still have a licence....sorry cyclists cause me far more trouble than cars ever have done. They are total wankers mostly
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
Just yesterday I was crossing at a green man signal and had the umbrella I was holding ripped out of my hand by a car speeding through it. Luckily I was holding it a few feet in front of me due to the wind so didn't actually mow me down.
When you look at the polling, very few people actually want HS2. How then has the Government not turned scrapping it into a net positive? Surround yourself with grateful NIMBYs. It’s not hard.
Very few people actively wanted it. Fewer still want it crippling after it's half built.
Hmmm. Fair enough. More up to date that what I found. I wonder if we’re also re-entering 90s/00s polling land where an idea being a Tory idea makes it unpopular.
Edit - mind you I bet I could move that dial by stating the price and what else it could pay for. I suspect these are all fragile numbers.
Spending always polls well, paying for it doesn't.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Then you are a poor judge of risk.
E-scooters have serious accident rates around 20x that of bicycles. In fact, it's hard to think of a method of transportation more likely to injure either riders or bystanders.
Did the landlords first take the order, pull half of a pint glass, and then say 'sorry, but I've decided not to go ahead with this; I'll use it to water my plants instead " ?
The utter abdication of the idea of Britain as global player and retreat into bizarre pothole parochialism is such a long way from where the Conservative Party ought to be.
An underrated aspect of Blair’s ascension was that our country felt significant again; it absolutely wasn’t his doing, but he rode the wave expertly.
The idea that a party - a *governing* party - would centre their campaigning platform on ‘motorists’ rights’ is utterly depressing. What kind of vision for the future is this? Jesus F’n Christ. How have we ended up with such absolute garbage?
It's really quite funny watching this in a grim blackly humorous sort of way.
Or it would be were it not for the effect on real people. I don't think it will get any better any time soon even if the government changes.
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
They won't if Northern town redwall voters get improved local bus routes, roads and rail routes instead.
They voted Conservative in 2019, not a single seat in Manchester or Liverpool or Leeds or Bradford voted Conservative even then
But they wont get improved bus routes, roads and whatever.
It will not happen.
The 'unspent' money will be recycled back into the pot and added to the fiscal headroom that can allow Hunt to announce a tax cut in Spring 2024.
If you think this HS2 cancel means Leigh gets a new No 36 bus then I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s pretty clear that the north will get zip and the likely Sunak announcement on west to east links is more can kicking and desperation to look like they have a plan B . I’m not sure they’re allowed to use allocated capital spending for tax cuts but you never know with the current bunch !
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Then you are a poor judge of risk.
E-scooters have serious accident rates around 20x that of bicycles. In fact, it's hard to think of a method of transportation more likely to injure either riders or bystanders.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Then you are a poor judge of risk.
E-scooters have serious accident rates around 20x that of bicycles. In fact, it's hard to think of a method of transportation more likely to injure either riders or bystanders.
The utter abdication of the idea of Britain as global player and retreat into bizarre pothole parochialism is such a long way from where the Conservative Party ought to be.
An underrated aspect of Blair’s ascension was that our country felt significant again; it absolutely wasn’t his doing, but he rode the wave expertly.
The idea that a party - a *governing* party - would centre their campaigning platform on ‘motorists’ rights’ is utterly depressing. What kind of vision for the future is this? Jesus F’n Christ. How have we ended up with such absolute garbage?
Didn't Blair pioneer the demographic targetting of motorists with Mondeo Man?
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
They won't if Northern town redwall voters get improved local bus routes, roads and rail routes instead.
They voted Conservative in 2019, not a single seat in Manchester or Liverpool or Leeds or Bradford voted Conservative even then
Good luck trying to find any bus drivers at the moment. Go Ahead North are on strike because they've discovered bus drivers down south are earning more...
FirstBus here announced they were closing down all of their night buses. To the dismay of almost everyone who worked in, or enjoyed, evening hospitality. A local company said they would take over the routes - but can't find any drivers.
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
They won't if Northern town redwall voters get improved local bus routes, roads and rail routes instead.
They voted Conservative in 2019, not a single seat in Manchester or Liverpool or Leeds or Bradford voted Conservative even then
Good luck trying to find any bus drivers at the moment. Go Ahead North are on strike because they've discovered bus drivers down south are earning more...
More money could be given to Northern bus drivers too
Comments
Edit - mind you I bet I could move that dial by stating the price and what else it could pay for. I suspect these are all fragile numbers.
·
4h
Hearing stories about people being abused and kicked out of bars across Manchester just because they’re Tories.
The tolerant left!
https://x.com/emilyhewertson/status/1708893056059969794?s=20
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
@montie
I walked into Conference earlier with
@Nigel_Farage He got quite the reception. I'm convinced party members would choose him as leader if they could.
===
Why do you think he is there for first time in years Tim?
The party is expected to publish the guidance document – including the definition – in the coming days.
The new guidance has been inserted into the Green Party’s framework for ethics and conduct which is used internally including by the party’s disciplinary bodies.
The adoption of a definition of queerphobia follows the party integrating a definition of islamophobia into the same framework earlier this year. It also comes two years after Green Party members agreed to adopt a detailed guidance document on antisemitism.'
https://bright-green.org/2023/10/02/green-party-adopts-definition-of-queerphobia-as-part-of-guidance-document-on-identifying-anti-lgbt-discrimination/
But governments are meant to govern. If we'd polled the about the channel tunnel when it was half built I bet we'd have got similarly confusing results; now, no one seriously questions it.
Just get it f*cking built!
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/02/uk-passport-images-database-could-be-used-to-catch-shoplifters
Never heard of him?
Me neither.
Brave man though.
@paulmasonnews
·
2h
Maybe just try a little way out of town in one of the ex-mining communities
That's not correct. It's stated in HMPO's privacy guidelines that the information in your application is shared with other departments "to help fulfill their aims and objectives".
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpo-privacy-information-notice
Northern seats? All gone. If they weren't already.
I've selected a "red wall" and "blue wall" local authority areas and have found that car ownership is lower in the red wall. Population density, which is correlated very closely with car ownership, is roughly the same in both "walls" if we exclude London.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3YgZhvuqsk
I believe the police are a law enforcement agency (allegedly).
Families should have more children to care for ageing UK population, minister says
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/02/families-should-have-more-children-to-care-for-ageing-uk-population-minister-says
*Not if you're an immigrant.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-high-speed-rail-hs2?crossBreak=north
[Except] vehicles parked in places which the local council has exempted from the bans. If you are parking in a street exempted from the ban then there will be bays painted in white indicating where you can park.
So it’s banned in London except where it isn’t, and is in fact the only way you are allowed to park!
No one is above the law, Trump told in New York fraud case
Trump blasts judge during first day of $250 million fraud trial
90% of the US 'liberal media' ran with a version of the latter.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
Crossrail and HS2, on top of our tube, tram and bus network. Thank you very much.
Even if Sunak's plan is correct (and I have profound doubts about that), the last week or so has been an utter train wreck.
This conference is turning into Alice in bloody Farage land.
"Would you leave HS2 half finished after spending tens of billions ?" is likely to get a somewhat different response to "would you halt HS2 ?"
Which question is the fair one ?
…if you cancel the train line
Always one for the political opportunity, that lad.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jun/11/twice-in-a-lifetime-would-you-dare-meet-your-doppelganger-
and
(2) how can she be sure that it wasn't Reform voters kicking the Tories out?
They voted Conservative in 2019, not a single seat in Manchester or Liverpool or Leeds or Bradford voted Conservative even then
Oh dear, dear, me.
Your prejudices precede you. The guy upthread has shown you the stats. You have just ignored them.
But imagine the trouble it would cause, which is why I imagined it as loudly declared.
A real loss to Tories thanks to Boris and Cummings.
That sign shows that those seeking to park their vehicles must use an approved box device under the left hand wheels, so as to create a right to left angle of between 8 and 14 degrees.
It's an architectural thing, and ensures that vehicles' positioning will be in tune with nearby buildings.
https://twitter.com/fesshole/status/1708608992396681375
I expect Sunak to spin that it’s nothing to do with him and some previous administration is to blame.
Anecdotes galore.
It will not happen.
The 'unspent' money will be recycled back into the pot and added to the fiscal headroom that can allow Hunt to announce a tax cut in Spring 2024.
If you think this HS2 cancel means Leigh gets a new No 36 bus then I have a bridge to sell you.
E-scooters have serious accident rates around 20x that of bicycles. In fact, it's hard to think of a method of transportation more likely to injure either riders or bystanders.
Or it would be were it not for the effect on real people. I don't think it will get any better any time soon even if the government changes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-66989348