I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
It's all boiling down to Rwanda for Rishi, isn't it. Can he get a flight off with a refugee onboard? Preferably a young male one who looks a bit edgy. If he can he collects £1000 from Piers Morgan and - just possibly - turns this whole thing around.
Has anyone considered the practicalities of flying a jumbo full of reluctant passengers?
That's the not the hard part. The formula is well proven and I saw it work in Iraq on detainees who were actual jihadis and a lot more punchy than your basic cross-channel fugee.
Pump them full of sedatives, adult nappy, hooded, shackled, one security contractor per passenger on the flight. Easy.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Should make interesting television. And if Sneaky Rishi decides to do it behind closed doors after dark he'll have to hope the reception committee in Kigali is equally discreet.
The flights are going to take off from Boscombe at Zero Dark 30 precisely because it's easier to isolate and conceal.
Surely the first flight will take off from City Airport complete with bunting, balloons, ticker tape and the Dagenham Girl Pipers.
Hmm, not one of the former RAF bases which is now an internment camp (or whatever they are called)? They have runways and all. Though presumably the lighting has been scrapped so it'd need to be in daytime ... not a good idea, on reflection.
You mean like Scampton and with a Red Arrows fly past too.
Manston might be worth looking at, come to think of it. Edit: wouldn't surprise me.
No, I like Scampton. We could have Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancaster bombers. Rishi (or Penny) could make a speech from the black dog's grave.
It's all boiling down to Rwanda for Rishi, isn't it. Can he get a flight off with a refugee onboard? Preferably a young male one who looks a bit edgy. If he can he collects £1000 from Piers Morgan and - just possibly - turns this whole thing around.
Has anyone considered the practicalities of flying a jumbo full of reluctant passengers?
That's the not the hard part. The formula is well proven and I saw it work in Iraq on detainees who were actual jihadis and a lot more punchy than your basic cross-channel fugee.
Pump them full of sedatives, adult nappy, hooded, shackled, one security contractor per passenger on the flight. Easy.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Should make interesting television. And if Sneaky Rishi decides to do it behind closed doors after dark he'll have to hope the reception committee in Kigali is equally discreet.
The flights are going to take off from Boscombe at Zero Dark 30 precisely because it's easier to isolate and conceal.
Surely the first flight will take off from City Airport complete with bunting, balloons, ticker tape and the Dagenham Girl Pipers.
Hmm, not one of the former RAF bases which is now an internment camp (or whatever they are called)? They have runways and all. Though presumably the lighting has been scrapped so it'd need to be in daytime ... not a good idea, on reflection.
You mean like Scampton and with a Red Arrows fly past too.
Manston might be worth looking at, come to think of it. Edit: wouldn't surprise me.
Even though it's very ill-suited for passenger movements, it'll be Boscombe Down because the airside operations are very secure. Activites cannot be disrupted by protests from the "woke brigade" or documented by unpatriotic journalists.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
No room in old style garages, more gardens concreted over, more bin lorries and fire engines can't get access ...
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
SUVs in the UK are mostly replacements for estate cars. And have a smaller footprint (mostly).
GPS speed limiters would be a bad idea - GPS is quite jammable. Not sure tying large amounts of infrastructure to it would be a good idea.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
The motor industry makes plenty of vehicles of all shapes and sizes, it's consumers who choose.
And consumers are influenced by their environment.
Get rid of the stupid speed hump obsession and consumers would have less reason to go for SUVs that mitigate them.
Regarding the Prince Harry possible deportation story, I'm wondering how common it is for journalists or "writers" who have gone on record as having taken lots of illegal drugs to disclose this fact when they apply for entry to the US.
The Tories are shot and no one is listening to them. They need something to change the subject that the public might notice. A new leader will turn them into a joke. For Sunak I can only think of only two possibilities that are within his control.
A general election or an offer to revisit of the 2016 EU Referendum
Well no, declare war on France seems a much better option, popular, adventurous and with decent patisseries.
At the moment he seems fixated on Rwanda and small boats so we're on the page. I haven't tried their patisseries but it seems a hell of a journey
You haven't tried Rwandan patisserie? Or you haven't tried French patisserie?
I dreamed about visiting Rwanda last night. Loosely connected with the current news cycle. It all looked very pleasant and suburban - I was remarking at all the nice old 19th century weatherboarded architecture. In fact it was sort of Rwanda and New England, at the same time. I don't recall exactly why I was sent there but it seemed work-related and somehow to do with HS2, which has nothing to do with my actual work.
I think I've just figured out where your dream came from.....One of the great opening lines. Rishi's missed a trick again
"I had a farm in Africa, at the foot of the Ngong Hills.....''
Regarding the Prince Harry possible deportation story, I'm wondering how common it is for journalists or "writers" who have gone on record as having taken lots of illegal drugs to disclose this fact when they apply for entry to the US.
So, let's get this straight: Trump has said, on the record, that if someone lied on legal documents then they should face the consequences, yes?
Maybe Farage does have some utility after all.
I guess of course that Trump's way out of that is that he didn't lie and the wildly differing figures for the same things submitted to banks and tax offices were entirely legit because (reasons).
It's all boiling down to Rwanda for Rishi, isn't it. Can he get a flight off with a refugee onboard? Preferably a young male one who looks a bit edgy. If he can he collects £1000 from Piers Morgan and - just possibly - turns this whole thing around.
Has anyone considered the practicalities of flying a jumbo full of reluctant passengers?
That's the not the hard part. The formula is well proven and I saw it work in Iraq on detainees who were actual jihadis and a lot more punchy than your basic cross-channel fugee.
Pump them full of sedatives, adult nappy, hooded, shackled, one security contractor per passenger on the flight. Easy.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Should make interesting television. And if Sneaky Rishi decides to do it behind closed doors after dark he'll have to hope the reception committee in Kigali is equally discreet.
The flights are going to take off from Boscombe at Zero Dark 30 precisely because it's easier to isolate and conceal.
Surely the first flight will take off from City Airport complete with bunting, balloons, ticker tape and the Dagenham Girl Pipers.
Hmm, not one of the former RAF bases which is now an internment camp (or whatever they are called)? They have runways and all. Though presumably the lighting has been scrapped so it'd need to be in daytime ... not a good idea, on reflection.
You mean like Scampton and with a Red Arrows fly past too.
Manston might be worth looking at, come to think of it. Edit: wouldn't surprise me.
Even though it's very ill-suited for passenger movements, it'll be Boscombe Down because the airside operations are very secure. Activites cannot be disrupted by protests from the "woke brigade" or documented by unpatriotic journalists.
Mm. But they need the journos for maximum publicity to win the next election and so on. Bit of a headscratcher there.
The vicious negative campaign that would be necessary to put Susan Hall into the London mayor's office would be useful to the Tories nationally, for sure. It would be anti-immigration, focused on Sadiq Khan, and essentially Leeanderthalist and Sendembackist. And it could still run simultaneously with a national campaign. We are only at Tuesday. There are several days left in which Sunak could be removed and a 2 May general election be called. Not saying it's likely, but it's possible. London and whipping up a view of London as foreign-occupied territory was always going to be a feature of the next GE campaign.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
It is a very pleasant feeling when I take my little C1 into a carpark and can nab a space that the SUVs still circling round won't fit in. Seems to happen frequently at the rugby club. Plus the fuel economy, having just set a new PB of 502 miles off a tank.
Regarding the Prince Harry possible deportation story, I'm wondering how common it is for journalists or "writers" who have gone on record as having taken lots of illegal drugs to disclose this fact when they apply for entry to the US.
So, let's get this straight: Trump has said, on the record, that if someone lied on legal documents then they should face the consequences, yes?
Maybe Farage does have some utility after all.
I guess of course that Trump's way out of that is that he didn't lie and the wildly differing figures for the same things submitted to banks and tax offices were entirely legit because (reasons).
Still, it's a point to file.
Trump has submitted filings to the same judge both that his assets are unfairly undervalued by the court by billions of dollars, and that he is unable to make a cash bond of a few hundred million.
Any other defendant would be behind bars by now. The deference that courts have shown the scofflaw is by now absurd.
I thought I'd have a play around with chatGPT since @Leon won't stop banging on about it, and he said it had learnt how to draw by itself. So I started with something simple and not especially impressed with the very first prompt I put in.
Hmm, fair enough on ASCII representation though it rather dismisses Leon's claim chatGPT taught itself how to draw, but what an interesting ASCII way of representing 4 blue and 3 green tokens.
I wonder if it can generate algorithms in the Game of Life to find previously undiscovered emergent structures?
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
On topic, one thing that struck me about the Alex Wickham thread is that it starts with Number 10 ruling out a summer election, then says the PM is banking on a shock Hall win and getting a Rwanda flight off the ground.
Leaving aside the TSE's point (with which I agree) that a Hall win is pretty implausible, the ONLY way for Sunak's "strategy" of waiting for something to turn up works is if he capitalises IMMEDIATELY if and when it does. So, if Hall did win and she pottered along to Heathrow with him to wave off the flight to Rwanda, that's the moment to call the summer election now being ruled out. If they just roll on through the summer, it's all a distant memory by the time an election comes - the bigger picture of a weak economy presided over by a divided and chaotic party that has been in power too long will keep on coming back.
Sunak's big mistake in terms of political tactics is he thinks he can gradually change the weather and the narrative from here. In fact, the only thing he can try to do is seize a moment when his opponent is off balance to throw a sucker punch. But he shows no signs of having the political instinct to do that even if the opportunity ever arises.
I thought I'd have a play around with chatGPT since @Leon won't stop banging on about it, and he said it had learnt how to draw by itself. So I started with something simple and not especially impressed with the very first prompt I put in.
Hmm, fair enough on ASCII representation though it rather dismisses Leon's claim chatGPT taught itself how to draw, but what an interesting ASCII way of representing 4 blue and 3 green tokens.
I wonder if it can generate algorithms in the Game of Life to find previously undiscovered emergent structures?
I seem to recall the only emergent structures in Game of Life are millionaire's mansion and country cottage. Plus a few status symbols.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
It is a very pleasant feeling when I take my little C1 into a carpark and can nab a space that the SUVs still circling round won't fit in. Seems to happen frequently at the rugby club. Plus the fuel economy, having just set a new PB of 502 miles off a tank.
Yes definitely a bonus for my new Swift which is same size as a C1 I think.
My tank is possibly smaller so can't get as many miles off a tank, but paying only £40 for a full tank is not bad all things considered.
It's all boiling down to Rwanda for Rishi, isn't it. Can he get a flight off with a refugee onboard? Preferably a young male one who looks a bit edgy. If he can he collects £1000 from Piers Morgan and - just possibly - turns this whole thing around.
Has anyone considered the practicalities of flying a jumbo full of reluctant passengers?
That's the not the hard part. The formula is well proven and I saw it work in Iraq on detainees who were actual jihadis and a lot more punchy than your basic cross-channel fugee.
Pump them full of sedatives, adult nappy, hooded, shackled, one security contractor per passenger on the flight. Easy.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Should make interesting television. And if Sneaky Rishi decides to do it behind closed doors after dark he'll have to hope the reception committee in Kigali is equally discreet.
The flights are going to take off from Boscombe at Zero Dark 30 precisely because it's easier to isolate and conceal.
Surely the first flight will take off from City Airport complete with bunting, balloons, ticker tape and the Dagenham Girl Pipers.
And Rishi on the run way waving them off.
The guy just hasn't got it. Boris would have been in the cockpit next to the pilot, pretending to fly the plane, full uniform, making vroom vroom noises.
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
I think voter psychology requires more than just disappointment in a government for it to crash and burn. If they're going to nail their colours to the mast they really need to get comfortable in their minds that there's an alternative. Otherwise they hang on to the incumbent and tread water for a while.
So Starmer and Reeves may not get much of a "honeymoon" as such but they probably will benefit from a bit of medium term voter commitment until the Tories get their act back together.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
Only in the sense that that unexpected war foregrounded defence, which helped the SDP and their partners the Liberals win votes from Labour. Tory voteshare was lower in 1983 (42.4%) than in 1979 (43.9%).
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
It is a very pleasant feeling when I take my little C1 into a carpark and can nab a space that the SUVs still circling round won't fit in. Seems to happen frequently at the rugby club. Plus the fuel economy, having just set a new PB of 502 miles off a tank.
Yes definitely a bonus for my new Swift which is same size as a C1 I think.
My tank is possibly smaller so can't get as many miles off a tank, but paying only £40 for a full tank is not bad all things considered.
I have gone from a people carrier to a people carrier to an SUV. Each car has got bigger on the outside and smaller on the inside. I'm guessing this is down to improved safety and in the case of the last car, which is a hybrid, the addition of an electric motor and battery. Interestingly the new car which has a much higher mpg goes a much shorter distance on a full tank and filling it up is much cheaper. Again I assume to save space needed elsewhere.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
I thought I'd have a play around with chatGPT since @Leon won't stop banging on about it, and he said it had learnt how to draw by itself. So I started with something simple and not especially impressed with the very first prompt I put in.
Hmm, fair enough on ASCII representation though it rather dismisses Leon's claim chatGPT taught itself how to draw, but what an interesting ASCII way of representing 4 blue and 3 green tokens.
I've found using ChatGPT as a super fancy search engine is the best use of it. Getting it to explain certain concepts and being able to interrogate the answers is really beneficial imo, though you have to go careful with it and it can be a bit of a long process when you need to verify the output. Still, useful way of getting new information explained to you.
When I've tried using it for simple writing tasks it performs okay (abstract writing for example), though I think I can do better and, by the time I've reviewed and made corrections, I may as well have done it myself.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
I'm with Bart of this one. Happy with churches, etc for those that want them, but I don't want religion rammed down my throat in unrelated places.
The degree where you can get in with Cs and earn as much as an Oxford graduate Graduating from a selective institution doesn’t guarantee the highest possible earnings
The Telegraph lists:-
Economics at the University of Birkbeck ... Architecture at Anglia Ruskin University ... Engineering at The Open University ... Pharmacy at the University of Brighton With the expectation of making £42,300 five years after graduation, the pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy alumni from the University of Brighton beat all other competitors in the earnings race.
The A-level requirement is a BBB. King’s College London and UCL are both more stringent, yet lead to salaries averaging £42,000 and £40,500 respectively.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
The motor industry makes plenty of vehicles of all shapes and sizes, it's consumers who choose.
And consumers are influenced by their environment.
Get rid of the stupid speed hump obsession and consumers would have less reason to go for SUVs that mitigate them.
Today's motor industry makes big cars and bigger cars. It does not make small cars. To take an example - the Ford Puma - the smallest model available in the UK - is 4.2m long and 1.8m wide. That is at least 600mm longer and 300mm wider than the Ford Ka, which was the smallest option before it went out of production (and could genuinely be called a small car). And other manufacturers have increased vehicle sizes similarly.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
More evidence for how the knuckledraggers' notion of "Londonistan" plays for the Sendembackist Powellite right nationally and will feature bigly in the next GE.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
SUVs in the UK are mostly replacements for estate cars. And have a smaller footprint (mostly).
GPS speed limiters would be a bad idea - GPS is quite jammable. Not sure tying large amounts of infrastructure to it would be a good idea.
It's not the length, it is the width that matters.
The degree where you can get in with Cs and earn as much as an Oxford graduate Graduating from a selective institution doesn’t guarantee the highest possible earnings
The Telegraph lists:-
Economics at the University of Birkbeck ... Architecture at Anglia Ruskin University ... Engineering at The Open University ... Pharmacy at the University of Brighton With the expectation of making £42,300 five years after graduation, the pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy alumni from the University of Brighton beat all other competitors in the earnings race.
The A-level requirement is a BBB. King’s College London and UCL are both more stringent, yet lead to salaries averaging £42,000 and £40,500 respectively.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The church to which you refer is the state church.
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
I think voter psychology requires more than just disappointment in a government for it to crash and burn. If they're going to nail their colours to the mast they really need to get comfortable in their minds that there's an alternative. Otherwise they hang on to the incumbent and tread water for a while.
So Starmer and Reeves may not get much of a "honeymoon" as such but they probably will benefit from a bit of medium term voter commitment until the Tories get their act back together.
I think it depends on how much material conditions for people get worse. I think we're likely in for continued economic pain because the incentives of capital are to hoard profits and not share them with workers, and to reduce worker conditions to maximise profits. Even if "AI" is not a magic bullet, increased automation will come sooner or later and that will lead to layoffs and a large proportion of workers having no income and therefore not being able to spend money, leading to economic stagnation. Trickle down growth does not happen. Growth needs to come from people who spend the money they have - poorer people.
This is starting to remind me of 1983, when during the election campaign the Labour Party felt the need to make an official statement that Michael Foot was its leader.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
I'm with Bart of this one. Happy with churches, etc for those that want them, but I don't want religion rammed down my throat in unrelated places.
Another person to join my "end public Christmas displays" club. I'm sure that the strength of your convictions will also apply to this religious holiday as well!
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
It is a very pleasant feeling when I take my little C1 into a carpark and can nab a space that the SUVs still circling round won't fit in. Seems to happen frequently at the rugby club. Plus the fuel economy, having just set a new PB of 502 miles off a tank.
Yes definitely a bonus for my new Swift which is same size as a C1 I think.
My tank is possibly smaller so can't get as many miles off a tank, but paying only £40 for a full tank is not bad all things considered.
Yes, probably. My 2008-vintage C1 has a 35 litre tank, so upwards of £50 to fill completely. Still, I probably got 70 mpg out that trip, which is more than decent (it was mostly motorway, but still).
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Starmer could keep to the fiscal rules and increase public spending by raising taxes on those above average incomes or wealth.
I am not saying he will, I fear he won’t, but neoliberalism is not the only way to stick to the fiscal rules.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
SUVs in the UK are mostly replacements for estate cars. And have a smaller footprint (mostly).
GPS speed limiters would be a bad idea - GPS is quite jammable. Not sure tying large amounts of infrastructure to it would be a good idea.
It's not the length, it is the width that matters.
The vicious negative campaign that would be necessary to put Susan Hall into the London mayor's office would be useful to the Tories nationally, for sure. It would be anti-immigration, focused on Sadiq Khan, and essentially Leeanderthalist and Sendembackist. And it could still run simultaneously with a national campaign. We are only at Tuesday. There are several days left in which Sunak could be removed and a 2 May general election be called. Not saying it's likely, but it's possible. London and whipping up a view of London as foreign-occupied territory was always going to be a feature of the next GE campaign.
Do they not realise that a lot of Refuk-leaning voters think Sunak is one of the foreigners occupying London?
I was once told by an elderly Boris fan that Sunak was "just too dark" to be prime minister.
Regarding the Prince Harry possible deportation story, I'm wondering how common it is for journalists or "writers" who have gone on record as having taken lots of illegal drugs to disclose this fact when they apply for entry to the US.
So, let's get this straight: Trump has said, on the record, that if someone lied on legal documents then they should face the consequences, yes?
Maybe Farage does have some utility after all.
I guess of course that Trump's way out of that is that he didn't lie and the wildly differing figures for the same things submitted to banks and tax offices were entirely legit because (reasons).
Still, it's a point to file.
Trump has submitted filings to the same judge both that his assets are unfairly undervalued by the court by billions of dollars, and that he is unable to make a cash bond of a few hundred million.
Any other defendant would be behind bars by now. The deference that courts have shown the scofflaw is by now absurd.
To be fair, it is possible that someone could be cash-strapped, asset-rich and unable to raise a bond by borrowing against their assets ... if they're a highly leveraged wholly untrustworthy individual with a history of lying and defaulting.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
The motor industry makes plenty of vehicles of all shapes and sizes, it's consumers who choose.
And consumers are influenced by their environment.
Get rid of the stupid speed hump obsession and consumers would have less reason to go for SUVs that mitigate them.
Today's motor industry makes big cars and bigger cars. It does not make small cars. To take an example - the Ford Puma - the smallest model available in the UK - is 4.2m long and 1.8m wide. That is at least 600mm longer and 300mm wider than the Ford Ka, which was the smallest option before it went out of production (and could genuinely be called a small car). And other manufacturers have increased vehicle sizes similarly.
We need more cars like the Kia Ray (3.6x1.6m - height 1.7m)
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
The motor industry makes plenty of vehicles of all shapes and sizes, it's consumers who choose.
No they don't. Your blind faith in the Free Market Fairy is somewhat overblown imo.
Consider Ford UK.
The smallest cars in their range are afaics currently the Ford Focus, which starts at 4.38m long x 1.83m wide, and weighs from 1.28 tonnes.
And the Ford Puma SUV, which is at least 4.19m long x 1.81m wide, and weighs from 1.32 tonnes.
Electric battery bloat does not apply - these are the ICE versions.
Just 10 years ago their smallest model was the now discontinued Ford Fiesta, which was 3.96m long by 1.71m wide, weighing from 1.05 tonnes.
Free markets require appropriate constraint and regulation in the wider interest of society.
We have a living example in the use of dangerous e-motorbikes, which overrun everywhere because of Govt failure to regulate supply chain or use over 5-6 years, and the current boneheaded proposal is to deal with it by making some of them legal with no restrictions whatsoever.
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
It's not defamatory; it's a matter of opinion. But in the BBC's case, the use of the description is presumably a breach of impartiality, given that it's effectively expressing a political opinion.
Tice is either being mischievous or just plain stupid in confusing the two things.
Regarding the Prince Harry possible deportation story, I'm wondering how common it is for journalists or "writers" who have gone on record as having taken lots of illegal drugs to disclose this fact when they apply for entry to the US.
So, let's get this straight: Trump has said, on the record, that if someone lied on legal documents then they should face the consequences, yes?
Maybe Farage does have some utility after all.
I guess of course that Trump's way out of that is that he didn't lie and the wildly differing figures for the same things submitted to banks and tax offices were entirely legit because (reasons).
Still, it's a point to file.
Trump has submitted filings to the same judge both that his assets are unfairly undervalued by the court by billions of dollars, and that he is unable to make a cash bond of a few hundred million.
Any other defendant would be behind bars by now. The deference that courts have shown the scofflaw is by now absurd.
To be fair, it is possible that someone could be cash-strapped, asset-rich and unable to raise a bond by borrowing against their assets ... if they're a highly leveraged wholly untrustworthy individual with a history of lying and defaulting.
In theory.
True. But one can bend over too far in being fair to Trump.
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
I think voter psychology requires more than just disappointment in a government for it to crash and burn. If they're going to nail their colours to the mast they really need to get comfortable in their minds that there's an alternative. Otherwise they hang on to the incumbent and tread water for a while.
So Starmer and Reeves may not get much of a "honeymoon" as such but they probably will benefit from a bit of medium term voter commitment until the Tories get their act back together.
I think it depends on how much material conditions for people get worse. I think we're likely in for continued economic pain because the incentives of capital are to hoard profits and not share them with workers, and to reduce worker conditions to maximise profits. Even if "AI" is not a magic bullet, increased automation will come sooner or later and that will lead to layoffs and a large proportion of workers having no income and therefore not being able to spend money, leading to economic stagnation. Trickle down growth does not happen. Growth needs to come from people who spend the money they have - poorer people.
People have been predicting mass job losses through automation, technology etc etc for decades. I started work in 1980 when word processors were in their infancy and laptops a mere gleam in Steve Jobs' eye but as these technologies developed there was a rush of reports about how they would sweep away whole armies of people in bank back offices, typing pools etc etc. And indeed many of these jobs did go but they were replaced by others and the level of employment in the economy continued to increase as more jobs shifted to service sectors.
Now we hear that AI is going to be the job killer but is that really any more likely to be correct bearing in mind that all previous predictions of this kind have proved very wide of the mark.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
SUVs in the UK are mostly replacements for estate cars. And have a smaller footprint (mostly).
GPS speed limiters would be a bad idea - GPS is quite jammable. Not sure tying large amounts of infrastructure to it would be a good idea.
It's not the length, it is the width that matters.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
Christmas is a secular holiday.
I have no problems with sending wishes to religious people on religious holidays either. Whether it be Easter or Ramadan or Passover that's fine.
I thought I'd have a play around with chatGPT since @Leon won't stop banging on about it, and he said it had learnt how to draw by itself. So I started with something simple and not especially impressed with the very first prompt I put in.
Hmm, fair enough on ASCII representation though it rather dismisses Leon's claim chatGPT taught itself how to draw, but what an interesting ASCII way of representing 4 blue and 3 green tokens.
I wonder if it can generate algorithms in the Game of Life to find previously undiscovered emergent structures?
I seem to recall the only emergent structures in Game of Life are millionaire's mansion and country cottage. Plus a few status symbols.
I think you are omitting eg Gliders and Glider Factories if I recall my Scientific American (or possibly Byte) circa 199x !
But if there is so little, that just demonstrates why we need AI to find some more.
The degree where you can get in with Cs and earn as much as an Oxford graduate Graduating from a selective institution doesn’t guarantee the highest possible earnings
The Telegraph lists:-
Economics at the University of Birkbeck ... Architecture at Anglia Ruskin University ... Engineering at The Open University ... Pharmacy at the University of Brighton With the expectation of making £42,300 five years after graduation, the pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy alumni from the University of Brighton beat all other competitors in the earnings race.
The A-level requirement is a BBB. King’s College London and UCL are both more stringent, yet lead to salaries averaging £42,000 and £40,500 respectively.
Students can get onto Pharmacy courses with CDD (that won't be the offer, but the Uni will accept).
BUT.
Many such students fail to complete their studies. One course I know has around 50% fail to graduate.
Then the student must pass the Pre-Registration exam - set nationally, not in the control of the Universities. You only get three (3) chances to pass. Many from the lower ranked Unis that admit students with CDD fail to ever pass the pre-reg.
But yes, if you make it, pharmacy is a high payer at the start of your career (although to progress you need to move up, away from being the direct pharmacist on the Boots counter, or in the hospital).
EDIT - also this year you will not get into the top schools of Pharmacy with less than ABB (Nottingham, Manchester, Bath etc)
Regarding the Prince Harry possible deportation story, I'm wondering how common it is for journalists or "writers" who have gone on record as having taken lots of illegal drugs to disclose this fact when they apply for entry to the US.
So, let's get this straight: Trump has said, on the record, that if someone lied on legal documents then they should face the consequences, yes?
Maybe Farage does have some utility after all.
I guess of course that Trump's way out of that is that he didn't lie and the wildly differing figures for the same things submitted to banks and tax offices were entirely legit because (reasons).
Still, it's a point to file.
Trump has submitted filings to the same judge both that his assets are unfairly undervalued by the court by billions of dollars, and that he is unable to make a cash bond of a few hundred million.
Any other defendant would be behind bars by now. The deference that courts have shown the scofflaw is by now absurd.
To be fair, it is possible that someone could be cash-strapped, asset-rich and unable to raise a bond by borrowing against their assets ... if they're a highly leveraged wholly untrustworthy individual with a history of lying and defaulting.
In theory.
In fact, historically, most "Billionaires" were only theoretically billionaires. If they tried to realise their assets, they wouldn't have anything like that much. Hence the empires that vanished when the founder died.
The phenomenon of the billionaire who could actually sign a check for 1,000,000,000 is quite recent.
This is quite separate from Trump having run low on the number of people left to lie to, in business. Even Douche Bank have wised up.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
I'm with Bart of this one. Happy with churches, etc for those that want them, but I don't want religion rammed down my throat in unrelated places.
Another person to join my "end public Christmas displays" club. I'm sure that the strength of your convictions will also apply to this religious holiday as well!
I have no problem with public Christmas displays. Just wondering what that has to do with religion?
Similarly Easter. I enjoy an Easter egg and hot cross bun like the next person as long as religion is not brought into it.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
There is a distinction between a 'Happy Easter' sign and a passage from the Bible/Koran.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The Gideon's bible in hotel rooms used to annoy me, especially if there wasn't a kettle.
0 for reception:
"How come you can provide me with an ancient religious text but not a way to make coffee?"
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Starmer could keep to the fiscal rules and increase public spending by raising taxes on those above average incomes or wealth.
I am not saying he will, I fear he won’t, but neoliberalism is not the only way to stick to the fiscal rules.
As I understand it one of the notable things about Thatcher's first budget was that she increased VAT from 8% to 15%, despite denying during the election campaign that she had any intention to do so.
Something similarly dramatic (and dishonest) on taxation is likely required if Starmer is going to achieve any fundamental reform of Britain.
He will have one shot at it. Will he be brave enough to go for it, and, if he does, what will he try to achieve?
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The Gideon's bible in hotel rooms used to annoy me, especially if there wasn't a kettle.
0 for reception:
"How come you can provide me with an ancient religious text but not a way to make coffee?"
"Well sir ..."
"Not interested. Just shove it."
The hotel doesn't provide the Gideon's bibles, either.
Perhaps you should setup a world wide society to provide coffee making equipment to hotel rooms, as an act of charity?
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
I'm with Bart of this one. Happy with churches, etc for those that want them, but I don't want religion rammed down my throat in unrelated places.
Another person to join my "end public Christmas displays" club. I'm sure that the strength of your convictions will also apply to this religious holiday as well!
I have no problem with public Christmas displays. Just wondering what that has to do with religion?
Similarly Easter. I enjoy an Easter egg and hot cross bun like the next person as long as religion is not brought into it.
The local CoE reverend quite liked my idea that we should abolish Christmas and replace it with a religious themed event of some kind. Possibly associated with Christianity.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The Gideon's bible in hotel rooms used to annoy me, especially if there wasn't a kettle.
0 for reception:
"How come you can provide me with an ancient religious text but not a way to make coffee?"
"Well sir ..."
"Not interested. Just shove it."
The hotel doesn't provide the Gideon's bibles, either.
Well that is worse - they are letting these religious types actually into my room.
Actually I don't mind the bible being there and occasionally read bits from the Old Testament, as I do on the only times I attend church which are weddings, funerals and christenings.
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Starmer could keep to the fiscal rules and increase public spending by raising taxes on those above average incomes or wealth.
I am not saying he will, I fear he won’t, but neoliberalism is not the only way to stick to the fiscal rules.
As I understand it one of the notable things about Thatcher's first budget was that she increased VAT from 8% to 15%, despite denying during the election campaign that she had any intention to do so.
Something similarly dramatic (and dishonest) on taxation is likely required if Starmer is going to achieve any fundamental reform of Britain.
He will have one shot at it. Will he be brave enough to go for it, and, of he does, what will he try to achieve?
Would probably just go straight on to a 10% pay rise in the public sector or something.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
SUVs in the UK are mostly replacements for estate cars. And have a smaller footprint (mostly).
GPS speed limiters would be a bad idea - GPS is quite jammable. Not sure tying large amounts of infrastructure to it would be a good idea.
I agree that actual speed limiting by GPS would be bad, but I've often thought that if exceeding the limit caused a repeated ping, like the seatbelt reminder sound, there would be far less speeding. I would have it become louder and more frequent the faster you went, or the longer you exceeded the limit for.
I thought I'd have a play around with chatGPT since @Leon won't stop banging on about it, and he said it had learnt how to draw by itself. So I started with something simple and not especially impressed with the very first prompt I put in.
Hmm, fair enough on ASCII representation though it rather dismisses Leon's claim chatGPT taught itself how to draw, but what an interesting ASCII way of representing 4 blue and 3 green tokens.
The AI thinks on a higher plain and exposes our lack of understanding of the interchangeability of '3' and '4'
The degree where you can get in with Cs and earn as much as an Oxford graduate Graduating from a selective institution doesn’t guarantee the highest possible earnings
The Telegraph lists:-
Economics at the University of Birkbeck ... Architecture at Anglia Ruskin University ... Engineering at The Open University ... Pharmacy at the University of Brighton With the expectation of making £42,300 five years after graduation, the pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy alumni from the University of Brighton beat all other competitors in the earnings race.
The A-level requirement is a BBB. King’s College London and UCL are both more stringent, yet lead to salaries averaging £42,000 and £40,500 respectively.
Students can get onto Pharmacy courses with CDD (that won't be the offer, but the Uni will accept).
BUT.
Many such students fail to complete their studies. One course I know has around 50% fail to graduate.
Then the student must pass the Pre-Registration exam - set nationally, not in the control of the Universities. You only get three (3) chances to pass. Many from the lower ranked Unis that admit students with CDD fail to ever pass the pre-reg.
But yes, if you make it, pharmacy is a high payer at the start of your career (although to progress you need to move up, away from being the direct pharmacist on the Boots counter, or in the hospital).
EDIT - also this year you will not get into the top schools of Pharmacy with less than ABB (Nottingham, Manchester, Bath etc)
I was amazed how long it has taken since I left Bath uni back in 2002 for the gov't (Any of them) to end the mahoosive underemployment of pharmacists and give them some prescribing powers for minor illnesses. The most obvious stone in obvious land to relieve some pressure from GPs for anyone who knows anything of quite how well educated pharmacists are.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
The motor industry makes plenty of vehicles of all shapes and sizes, it's consumers who choose.
No they don't. Your blind faith in the Free Market Fairy is somewhat overblown imo.
Consider Ford UK.
The smallest cars in their range are afaics currently the Ford Focus, which starts at 4.38m long x 1.83m wide, and weighs from 1.28 tonnes.
And the Ford Puma SUV, which is at least 4.19m long x 1.81m wide, and weighs from 1.32 tonnes.
Electric battery bloat does not apply - these are the ICE versions.
Just 10 years ago their smallest model was the now discontinued Ford Fiesta, which was 3.96m long by 1.71m wide, weighing from 1.05 tonnes.
Free markets require appropriate constraint and regulation in the wider interest of society.
We have a living example in the use of dangerous e-motorbikes, which overrun everywhere because of Govt failure to regulate supply chain or use over 5-6 years, and the current boneheaded proposal is to deal with it by making some of them legal with no restrictions whatsoever.
Before sating no it does not you need to define what you accept as small, medium or large.
A traditional definition of small cars is typically up to 4.2m length which excludes the Ford Focus, I agree, but it's a mistake to refer to the Focus as an example of a small car.
My own personal car is a Suzuki Swift. Dimensions: 3.86m length, 1.7m width.
Under any rational definition the Swift, which I bought this year new so is available on the market, is a small car.
Other models are available.
C1 was mentioned earlier. It's even smaller. Dimensions: 3.466m length, 1.615m width.
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Starmer could keep to the fiscal rules and increase public spending by raising taxes on those above average incomes or wealth.
I am not saying he will, I fear he won’t, but neoliberalism is not the only way to stick to the fiscal rules.
As I understand it one of the notable things about Thatcher's first budget was that she increased VAT from 8% to 15%, despite denying during the election campaign that she had any intention to do so.
Something similarly dramatic (and dishonest) on taxation is likely required if Starmer is going to achieve any fundamental reform of Britain.
He will have one shot at it. Will he be brave enough to go for it, and, of he does, what will he try to achieve?
It seems me that Starmer is going for a "don't scare the horses" approach, which may win him the election but will lead to problems afterwards when he has to start breaking election pledges.
He would be better off going the Cameron/Osborne route of 2010 and put some more radical reforms in, potentially sacrificing some seats but getting a mandate for change.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Sadly this thought is a little late to the feast. Especially since the Norman conquest, but also before, there has been a policy for over 900 years of placing a religious building at the centre of every single community in England and Wales, large and small. Reversing this policy of an entire millennium will take time and may never be completed to the satisfaction of everyone.
The vicious negative campaign that would be necessary to put Susan Hall into the London mayor's office would be useful to the Tories nationally, for sure. It would be anti-immigration, focused on Sadiq Khan, and essentially Leeanderthalist and Sendembackist. And it could still run simultaneously with a national campaign. We are only at Tuesday. There are several days left in which Sunak could be removed and a 2 May general election be called. Not saying it's likely, but it's possible. London and whipping up a view of London as foreign-occupied territory was always going to be a feature of the next GE campaign.
Do they not realise that a lot of Refuk-leaning voters think Sunak is one of the foreigners occupying London?
I was once told by an elderly Boris fan that Sunak was "just too dark" to be prime minister.
Perhaps he was referring to Rishi's bleak sense of nausea about the fundamental nothingness of existence?
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
There is a distinction between a 'Happy Easter' sign and a passage from the Bible/Koran.
Wondering when this thread turns into an argument about having pagan Norse beliefs stuffed down our throats, what with Eostre, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, and so on ...
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
It's not defamatory; it's a matter of opinion. But in the BBC's case, the use of the description is presumably a breach of impartiality, given that it's effectively expressing a political opinion.
Tice is either being mischievous or just plain stupid in confusing the two things.
In my neck of the woods, I get the feeling that RefUK are pandering amongst other things to the former BNP vote (probably significantly protest votes).
It was small, but persistent, with a few hundred votes in 1979 for the National Front, and 5.8% in Ashfield at the 2010 Election. There is more of a small heartland just in Derbyshire (Amber Valley) where they won a couple of council seats in Heanor at one stage, and used to have their national jamborees at iirc Old Denby.
What is perhaps unusual is that this is not traditional BNP ethnic-heavy territory, where hate politics can be marketed more easily.
But if LeeAnderthal goes chasing those he will be buried, I think. The demographic weight of the constituency is imo moving the other way over time; however I can't really comment on WWC pensioners. But it's notable to me that left-rhetoric against Anderson relies too much on traditional tropes ("rich, privileged Tory") which largely do not apply to him.
The vicious negative campaign that would be necessary to put Susan Hall into the London mayor's office would be useful to the Tories nationally, for sure. It would be anti-immigration, focused on Sadiq Khan, and essentially Leeanderthalist and Sendembackist. And it could still run simultaneously with a national campaign. We are only at Tuesday. There are several days left in which Sunak could be removed and a 2 May general election be called. Not saying it's likely, but it's possible. London and whipping up a view of London as foreign-occupied territory was always going to be a feature of the next GE campaign.
Do they not realise that a lot of Refuk-leaning voters think Sunak is one of the foreigners occupying London?
I was once told by an elderly Boris fan that Sunak was "just too dark" to be prime minister.
Perhaps he was referring to Rishi's bleak sense of nausea about the fundamental nothingness of existence?
Must have been visiting the bog in the outhouse at Thomas Hardy's birthplace.
I think Susan Hall will lose but might do a little better than her odds suggest. Am not a London-dweller these days, but ULEZ (which was a Conservative policy?) does seem to still motivate a great deal of anti-Khan feeling in the blue ‘burbs.
It’s not a dynamic or appealing contest though. Hopefully both parties are giving proper thought to their next candidate.
To be anti-ULEZ now it’s been implemented, you have to:
- Not believe the stats on the impact on air quality, or not care - Drive, and enjoy cars and driving - Not enjoy cars and driving enough to have a petrol car less than 20 years old or a diesel less than 8 years old - if you were affected, still not changed car since ULEZ extension came in
That’s a pretty small voter demographic
One of the fears of the ULEZ was that the criteria would be tightened over time. So people with a compliant car now might worry that it could suddenly be non-compliant tomorrow.
well isnt that inevitable ? Once a threshold has been crossed the costs only go one way.
Yes. I was trying to be gentle about the point.
The end state for the ULEZ would be zero tailpipe emissions vehicles only.
I think Euro 6 as 'acceptable' for anti-pollution schemes is safe for an extended period of time. I bought my Euro 6 car with back in 2018 with such schemes in mind, with the intention of keeping it until electric cars become practical for my need. That could be 2030+.
The Euro 7 standard is not coming in even on new vehicles for several years.
The big cause on the pareto chart for pollution will be the remaining minority of pre-2016 vehicles, and blanket exemptions such as taxis which are allowed to continue to pollute. Plus the current level for petrol vehicles is several jumps away - is it currently Euro 4 ie 2006 registration.
That and targeting the need for a shift away from space inefficient forms of private transport to alternatives more suitable for cities.
London is continuing to invest, and imo will be OK, and Susan Hall will be marooned back in the 1980s somewhere.
IIRC the majority of pollution - especially particulates - comes from a minority of vehicles.
We should move to a more balanced scheme which encourages small vehicles. Too much of the taxation and "road calming" systems encourage large electric SUVs at the moment - very little taxation and they laugh at road humps.
Completely agreed, 100%. We have humps down my road which are a PITA even below let alone at the speed limit for my new, small, hybrid low-polluting vehicle but a large diesel SUV would would take with more ease. They should be completely abolished as a concept.
When it comes to particulates, the pareto principle comes into play. Taxis etc that are driving repeatedly around and around for hours a day emit far more emissions than private vehicles driving down a road twice a day. Yet too many schemes target the latter and not the former.
Exempting taxis etc from standards is utterly insane, they should have the highest standards, not the lowest.
Banning speed bumps, or banning SUVs?
The only surprise is that mandatory GPS speed limiters on new cars haven't become a thing yet. Would make Wales' 20mph policy much more effective, could use it to taper down motorway speeds as you approach congestion etc etc
Probably due to opposition from the motor industry. Which at the moment seems to be on a mission to make life difficult for its customers and bring regulators down on its head - SUVs get bigger and bigger so that eventually they will have to be banned or severely restricted in cities as there simply won't be the roadspace for them. And pointless technological gimmicks such a keyless entry have led to a wave of thefts which make some vehicles almost uninsurable and puts up the premiums for everyone else.
SUVs in the UK are mostly replacements for estate cars. And have a smaller footprint (mostly).
GPS speed limiters would be a bad idea - GPS is quite jammable. Not sure tying large amounts of infrastructure to it would be a good idea.
I agree that actual speed limiting by GPS would be bad, but I've often thought that if exceeding the limit caused a repeated ping, like the seatbelt reminder sound, there would be far less speeding. I would have it become louder and more frequent the faster you went, or the longer you exceeded the limit for.
Modern tech means that cars can read road signs quite easily. A speed limiter (as fitted to coaches, which is more a withdrawal of acceleration ability) is then perfectly possible.
The worst bit about modern cars, even worse than the ridiculous bloat is the SUVification of small-medium cars. The SUV-hatch frankenstein hybrids are such garbage to look at. What was wrong with the good old hatch. Maybe it's why I always buy Peugeots - they've at least kept a small-medium car looking like a normal car.
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
It's not defamatory; it's a matter of opinion. But in the BBC's case, the use of the description is presumably a breach of impartiality, given that it's effectively expressing a political opinion.
Tice is either being mischievous or just plain stupid in confusing the two things.
In my neck of the woods, I get the feeling that RefUK are pandering amongst other things to the former BNP vote (probably significantly protest votes).
It was small, but persistent, with a few hundred votes in 1979 for the National Front, and 5.8% in Ashfield at the 2010 Election. There is more of a small heartland just in Derbyshire (Amber Valley) where they won a couple of council seats in Heanor at one stage, and used to have their national jamborees at iirc Old Denby.
What is perhaps unusual is that this is not traditional BNP ethnic-heavy territory, where hate politics can be marketed more easily.
But if LeeAnderthal goes chasing those he will be buried, I think. The constituency is imo moving the other way over time.
The Black Swan for the Tories is Nigel Farage. Not tax cuts, not Rwanda, not Starmer who doesn't have a plan or know what a woman is and who defends Terrorists.
Despite the polls, the notion of the Tories coming 3rd - or 4th - feels fanciful. Until you consider the impact of ReFUK. Farage now strongly rumoured to be stepping back in - and with his GBeebies presence he isn't exactly invisible as it is.
How do we go 1979 > 1997 > Canada 93? Nigel Farage leads ReFUK with his usual simplicity of thought and panache and the remaining Tory vote collapses. And they can't even buy him off. Why be bought off with baubles now when he can have the whole thing in a few months?
The 1979 comparison is interesting more for what will happen next rather than the result of the vote. It is assumed by many, including on this board, that Starmer will crash and burn and the natural Conservative order will swiftly be resumed. I am not convinced. Starmer will likely have the opportunity to be transformative like Thatcher was. Will he take take the opportunity? I suspect he will try. The warning for him though is that Thatcher wasn't at all popular and was only rescued by random Argentinian generals invading an island full of sheep.
I'm not convinced Starmer will crash and burn as much as he will just continue the status quo and that, in and of itself, will lead to ruin. I think one of the things that the Tories (correctly) learnt from Brexit was that, for a lot of the British public, big change is wanted. They just drank their own Kool Aid that the EU was the big thing stopping popular big change when, in fact, it's the neoliberal consensus (that the EU is part of) that is hindering it.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Starmer could keep to the fiscal rules and increase public spending by raising taxes on those above average incomes or wealth.
I am not saying he will, I fear he won’t, but neoliberalism is not the only way to stick to the fiscal rules.
Quite. Hunt's fiscal "rule" is that public sector debt should be falling as a % of GDP in the fifth year of the OBR forecast. But as anyone who has ever done a financial forecast knows, by the fifth year it's all pretty much finger in the air stuff, it's very hard to come up with solid numbers that far ahead. Hunt has stuck in a few numbers which hardly anyone believes are realistic (including unfreezing fuel duty and cuts in unprotected departments which will not be delivered). And he has reduced the "margin" in the numbers (an allowance for things to go wrong if you like) to £9bn - which is 0.75% of the total - a ridiculously small number and, having done all that, he just about manages to get debt coming down in year 5. It's obvious that Labour is going to have to unpick all this and come up with a more realistic way forward, which is going to involve tax increases.
The degree where you can get in with Cs and earn as much as an Oxford graduate Graduating from a selective institution doesn’t guarantee the highest possible earnings
The Telegraph lists:-
Economics at the University of Birkbeck ... Architecture at Anglia Ruskin University ... Engineering at The Open University ... Pharmacy at the University of Brighton With the expectation of making £42,300 five years after graduation, the pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy alumni from the University of Brighton beat all other competitors in the earnings race.
The A-level requirement is a BBB. King’s College London and UCL are both more stringent, yet lead to salaries averaging £42,000 and £40,500 respectively.
The Pharmacy Department at the University of Brighton was inspired by Breaking Bad, I believe. So no surprise they earn well.
This information about universities is quite astonishing.
"Agriculture, food and related studies. The average graduate salary for this subject across all universities is £24,977 after five years."
That is only slightly above the minimum wage.
The pattern in the article is that the universities that claim to boost earnings are those that offer vocational courses especially those to adult learners like Birkbeck.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Sadly this thought is a little late to the feast. Especially since the Norman conquest, but also before, there has been a policy for over 900 years of placing a religious building at the centre of every single community in England and Wales, large and small. Reversing this policy of an entire millennium will take time and may never be completed to the satisfaction of everyone.
That's been policy since religion was invented. Making it a Christian temple was just part of the spread of Christianity.
The Saxons and the Normans were just big on (re)building in stone.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The Gideon's bible in hotel rooms used to annoy me, especially if there wasn't a kettle.
0 for reception:
"How come you can provide me with an ancient religious text but not a way to make coffee?"
"Well sir ..."
"Not interested. Just shove it."
The hotel doesn't provide the Gideon's bibles, either.
Perhaps you should setup a world wide society to provide coffee making equipment to hotel rooms, as an act of charity?
Yes good call. It was only the *combination* of present bible and absent kettle that would get my goat. If both were there, no problem. In fact with a spare few minutes I've been known to fix myself a coffee and read a bit of Deuteronomy.
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
Define "far-right". I assume that Tice considers that to refer to people like the BNP and neo-fascists. Political identity relies on the Overton window which is constantly shifting. Not sure that applies any more...
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
Specifically: "Recall group analysis – the characteristics do not define the group, the group defines the characteristics" and "Group analysis – the analysis of groups of people voting together – can be objectively measured, reduced to numbers, and depicted by animations or graphs."
Categories are assigned by history and are difficult to handle when politics changes. Until things settle down (which won't be for years), it would be better to handle Reform by looking at the voting method of its MP (via Parliamentary voting records) and the people who vote for it (you can use a MRP for that). That will not be quick nor easily understandable, and a placeholder like "BRICS" or "the Five Families" may be needed.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
There is a distinction between a 'Happy Easter' sign and a passage from the Bible/Koran.
Wondering when this thread turns into an argument about having pagan Norse beliefs stuffed down our throats, what with Eostre, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, and so on ...
While we're on that subject , where's the outrage at September, October, November, and December NOT being the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth months of the year ?
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The Gideon's bible in hotel rooms used to annoy me, especially if there wasn't a kettle.
0 for reception:
"How come you can provide me with an ancient religious text but not a way to make coffee?"
"Well sir ..."
"Not interested. Just shove it."
The hotel doesn't provide the Gideon's bibles, either.
Perhaps you should setup a world wide society to provide coffee making equipment to hotel rooms, as an act of charity?
Yes good call. It was only the *combination* of present bible and absent kettle that would get my goat. If both were there, no problem. In fact with a spare few minutes I've been known to fix myself a coffee and read a bit of Deuteronomy.
Oho. Church of England buildings as Public Spaces is one of the definitive rabbitholes ! Especially amongst photographers.
CofE services are iirc "Publick Worship" by law, and there exists a right of access, subject to the power of arrest enjoyed by CofE Churchwardens for people causing disruption in church or churchyard, under Chapter 32 of The Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
There is a distinction between a 'Happy Easter' sign and a passage from the Bible/Koran.
Wondering when this thread turns into an argument about having pagan Norse beliefs stuffed down our throats, what with Eostre, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, and so on ...
While we're on that subject , where's the outrage at September, October, November, and December NOT being the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth months of the year ?
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The Gideon's bible in hotel rooms used to annoy me, especially if there wasn't a kettle.
0 for reception:
"How come you can provide me with an ancient religious text but not a way to make coffee?"
"Well sir ..."
"Not interested. Just shove it."
The hotel doesn't provide the Gideon's bibles, either.
Perhaps you should setup a world wide society to provide coffee making equipment to hotel rooms, as an act of charity?
Yes good call. It was only the *combination* of present bible and absent kettle that would get my goat. If both were there, no problem. In fact with a spare few minutes I've been known to fix myself a coffee and read a bit of Deuteronomy.
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The initial post was about a railway station. So, this comes down to how you feel about rail nationalisation presumably. If you think railways should be privatised, then the station is owned by a company and they should get to say what they want. If you think railways should be nationalised, then it’s a secular space. Bart: privatised or nationalised rail?
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
There is a distinction between a 'Happy Easter' sign and a passage from the Bible/Koran.
Wondering when this thread turns into an argument about having pagan Norse beliefs stuffed down our throats, what with Eostre, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, and so on ...
While we're on that subject , where's the outrage at September, October, November, and December NOT being the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth months of the year ?
They are if you revert to the traditional English New Year, beginning with Lady Day in March
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
Really? Cool - as someone who is both an atheist and a Grinch, we must hold Christmas to this standard as well as a clear non secular holiday. I don't care if you want to argue "it is practically secular", it isn't, and under your logic shoving it down our throats would be wrong. Same with Easter, btw, I want to see absolutely zero Easter messages from anything this March.
There is a distinction between a 'Happy Easter' sign and a passage from the Bible/Koran.
Wondering when this thread turns into an argument about having pagan Norse beliefs stuffed down our throats, what with Eostre, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, and so on ...
While we're on that subject , where's the outrage at September, October, November, and December NOT being the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth months of the year ?
We get this sort of religious shit from tube station operatives quite frequently on their marker pen whiteboards. Usually Christian texts, occasionally something Buddhist, but frankly it’s the same stuff. When they’re not writing live-laugh-love type self help messages
I suspect Isam is fine with Christian texts.
I would not be.
Religion shouldn't be in public spaces.
Good luck with all that cathedral demolishing then...
Cathedrals are private spaces are they not? They belong to the Church, who can use it as they please.
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
The initial post was about a railway station. So, this comes down to how you feel about rail nationalisation presumably. If you think railways should be privatised, then the station is owned by a company and they should get to say what they want. If you think railways should be nationalised, then it’s a secular space. Bart: privatised or nationalised rail?
Personally I think they should be privatised, but aren't currently in London, so it's not about what I want but about what the situation is currently.
The status of whether it's public or private doesn't change based on what I want, it's a matter of objective fact not subjective opinion.
The degree where you can get in with Cs and earn as much as an Oxford graduate Graduating from a selective institution doesn’t guarantee the highest possible earnings
The Telegraph lists:-
Economics at the University of Birkbeck ... Architecture at Anglia Ruskin University ... Engineering at The Open University ... Pharmacy at the University of Brighton With the expectation of making £42,300 five years after graduation, the pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy alumni from the University of Brighton beat all other competitors in the earnings race.
The A-level requirement is a BBB. King’s College London and UCL are both more stringent, yet lead to salaries averaging £42,000 and £40,500 respectively.
Students can get onto Pharmacy courses with CDD (that won't be the offer, but the Uni will accept).
BUT.
Many such students fail to complete their studies. One course I know has around 50% fail to graduate.
Then the student must pass the Pre-Registration exam - set nationally, not in the control of the Universities. You only get three (3) chances to pass. Many from the lower ranked Unis that admit students with CDD fail to ever pass the pre-reg.
But yes, if you make it, pharmacy is a high payer at the start of your career (although to progress you need to move up, away from being the direct pharmacist on the Boots counter, or in the hospital).
EDIT - also this year you will not get into the top schools of Pharmacy with less than ABB (Nottingham, Manchester, Bath etc)
I was amazed how long it has taken since I left Bath uni back in 2002 for the gov't (Any of them) to end the mahoosive underemployment of pharmacists and give them some prescribing powers for minor illnesses. The most obvious stone in obvious land to relieve some pressure from GPs for anyone who knows anything of quite how well educated pharmacists are.
Its been coming for a while. We have long had a post grad prescribing course but from next year all pharmacy graduates will be prescribers (i.e. anyone graduating 2025 on - its not retrospective). This has led to some tricky changes in course material as the 2025 cohort were not heading in that direction when they started.
Pharmacy has hugely changed. Back in the day students did a lot of science and manufacturing of ointments creams etc, but very little of the soft clinical skills. My colleague at Bath, who graduated in the mid 80's, did not do any clinical at all, as it was on Wednesday afternoons when he was playing rugby. In those days you learned science at Uni and clinical on the job.
I'm not most pharmacists would claim to be underemployed - many of the public have a very dim idea of what the pharmacist actually does at work. Very few actually dispense (at least not in the bigger companies) - thats a job for less well paid dispensers.
I do think it will help to have minor conditions being able to pharmacists prescribe treatment, but I think there are also other issues with GP's. A better approach might be to create more drop in GP centres in towns - turn up and wait. My son had an ear infection at the weekend. Full time wife took him to the minor injury unit in the next town (which functions as a walk in GP) and got treatment in less than an hour. If we had tried with the surgery we would still be waiting. GPs won't necessarily like them - being part of a GP practice can be very lucrative, but I think something needs to give.
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
Define "far-right". I assume that Tice considers that to refer to people like the BNP and neo-fascists. Political identity relies on the Overton window which is constantly shifting. Not sure that applies any more...
You can't just say that 'far right' has to be outside the Overton Window; there has to be an objective basis to it as well, from policies and actions. A politician who hasn't changed his views doesn't cease to be far right merely because more people are voting for him (or, infrequently, her).
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
It’s not libellous to call Reform UK far right, is it? You can’t libel a company. It may or may not be libellous to call Richard Tice far right.
Comments
GPS speed limiters would be a bad idea - GPS is quite jammable. Not sure tying large amounts of infrastructure to it would be a good idea.
And consumers are influenced by their environment.
Get rid of the stupid speed hump obsession and consumers would have less reason to go for SUVs that mitigate them.
https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-suggests-prince-harry-could-be-deported-from-the-us/
"I had a farm in Africa, at the foot of the Ngong Hills.....''
Maybe Farage does have some utility after all.
I guess of course that Trump's way out of that is that he didn't lie and the wildly differing figures for the same things submitted to banks and tax offices were entirely legit because (reasons).
Still, it's a point to file.
Any other defendant would be behind bars by now. The deference that courts have shown the scofflaw is by now absurd.
Again, I put Johnson's large electoral win as much down to his promise (true or otherwise) to turn the spigot on for spending as much as down to "sorting out" Brexit. Corbyn's popularity (his election against May was surprisingly close) was also, in part, down to his adamant opposition to the continuation of austerity. I know many here like to argue that austerity never happened, but if you interact with the NHS or with schools or with local councils - the impact is unmistakeable.
With his "fiscal rules" Starmer and Reeves have essentially signed up to Tory economic policy. Unless that's a lie from SKS (which I personally doubt) that is why I see his government being unpopular. Not because it doesn't look more professional or isn't passing legislation - but because his entire ethos will still be underpinned by a view of economics that will not allow government intervention on behalf of the vast majority of people in this country.
Leaving aside the TSE's point (with which I agree) that a Hall win is pretty implausible, the ONLY way for Sunak's "strategy" of waiting for something to turn up works is if he capitalises IMMEDIATELY if and when it does. So, if Hall did win and she pottered along to Heathrow with him to wave off the flight to Rwanda, that's the moment to call the summer election now being ruled out. If they just roll on through the summer, it's all a distant memory by the time an election comes - the bigger picture of a weak economy presided over by a divided and chaotic party that has been in power too long will keep on coming back.
Sunak's big mistake in terms of political tactics is he thinks he can gradually change the weather and the narrative from here. In fact, the only thing he can try to do is seize a moment when his opponent is off balance to throw a sucker punch. But he shows no signs of having the political instinct to do that even if the opportunity ever arises.
My tank is possibly smaller so can't get as many miles off a tank, but paying only £40 for a full tank is not bad all things considered.
So Starmer and Reeves may not get much of a "honeymoon" as such but they probably will benefit from a bit of medium term voter commitment until the Tories get their act back together.
The lead character of For All Mankind was based on him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_P._Stafford
They can put whatever messages they want in their buildings and on signage on their land. Free speech.
But it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats in secular spaces.
When I've tried using it for simple writing tasks it performs okay (abstract writing for example), though I think I can do better and, by the time I've reviewed and made corrections, I may as well have done it myself.
The degree where you can get in with Cs and earn as much as an Oxford graduate
Graduating from a selective institution doesn’t guarantee the highest possible earnings
The Telegraph lists:-
Economics at the University of Birkbeck
...
Architecture at Anglia Ruskin University
...
Engineering at The Open University
...
Pharmacy at the University of Brighton
With the expectation of making £42,300 five years after graduation, the pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy alumni from the University of Brighton beat all other competitors in the earnings race.
The A-level requirement is a BBB. King’s College London and UCL are both more stringent, yet lead to salaries averaging £42,000 and £40,500 respectively.
Computing at Aston University
...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/jobs/schools-universities/university-degree-earnings-qualifications-oxford-cambridge/ (£££)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/mar/19/rachel-reeves-labour-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news-updates
Reform UK leader Richard Tice claims it is 'defamatory and libellous' to call his party far-right
Richard Tice, the Reform UK leader, has claimed that it would be defamatory to call his party “far-right”.
He spoke out after the BBC apologised for using the phrase to describe the party in an article at the weekend primarily about the Liberal Democrats’ conference.
The BBC said:
In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right when referring to polling.
This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.
And in response Tice said:
The BBC has apologised for the news website referring to Reform UK as ‘far-right’ following an intervention from my lawyers.
My lawyers are also in touch with other news organisations who repeated the BBC line.
To be clear, I view this as defamatory and libellous.
The fact that the BBC has chosen not to use the term to describe Reform UK may deter other media organisations from using it too, but it does not prove that it is libellous. Ultimately that is something that would have to be decided by a court.
Journalists and commentators sometimes use the term “far-right” quite loosely, and it is almost always pejorative. But political scientists do use the term with care and precision. Last year we reported on Dutch academics who have studied European political parties to consider how many of them might be called “far-right”. They considered whether the Conservative party could be described in these terms, but ultimately decided against it. “In the end we didn’t because nativism was not their core focus. But we may in future,” Matthijs Rooduijn, the political scientist in charge of the project said.
One of the academics who has studied this issue most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separation of powers”.
Reform UK is a democratic party and clearly does not fit the extreme version of Mudde’s definition. But the label might apply to some aspects of its politics. For example, the call by Lee Anderson, the party’s new MP, last year for the government to ignore the supreme court after it ruled against the Rwanda policy would count as far-right within Mudde’s radical right category.
I am not saying he will, I fear he won’t, but neoliberalism is not the only way to stick to the fiscal rules.
I was once told by an elderly Boris fan that Sunak was "just too dark" to be prime minister.
In theory.
Consider Ford UK.
The smallest cars in their range are afaics currently the Ford Focus, which starts at 4.38m long x 1.83m wide, and weighs from 1.28 tonnes.
And the Ford Puma SUV, which is at least 4.19m long x 1.81m wide, and weighs from 1.32 tonnes.
Electric battery bloat does not apply - these are the ICE versions.
Just 10 years ago their smallest model was the now discontinued Ford Fiesta, which was 3.96m long by 1.71m wide, weighing from 1.05 tonnes.
Free markets require appropriate constraint and regulation in the wider interest of society.
We have a living example in the use of dangerous e-motorbikes, which overrun everywhere because of Govt failure to regulate supply chain or use over 5-6 years, and the current boneheaded proposal is to deal with it by making some of them legal with no restrictions whatsoever.
But in the BBC's case, the use of the description is presumably a breach of impartiality, given that it's effectively expressing a political opinion.
Tice is either being mischievous or just plain stupid in confusing the two things.
But one can bend over too far in being fair to Trump.
Now we hear that AI is going to be the job killer but is that really any more likely to be correct bearing in mind that all previous predictions of this kind have proved very wide of the mark.
I have no problems with sending wishes to religious people on religious holidays either. Whether it be Easter or Ramadan or Passover that's fine.
Sermons, psalms etc that's a different matter.
Well wishes are fine, preaching is not.
But if there is so little, that just demonstrates why we need AI to find some more.
BUT.
Many such students fail to complete their studies. One course I know has around 50% fail to graduate.
Then the student must pass the Pre-Registration exam - set nationally, not in the control of the Universities. You only get three (3) chances to pass. Many from the lower ranked Unis that admit students with CDD fail to ever pass the pre-reg.
But yes, if you make it, pharmacy is a high payer at the start of your career (although to progress you need to move up, away from being the direct pharmacist on the Boots counter, or in the hospital).
EDIT - also this year you will not get into the top schools of Pharmacy with less than ABB (Nottingham, Manchester, Bath etc)
The phenomenon of the billionaire who could actually sign a check for 1,000,000,000 is quite recent.
This is quite separate from Trump having run low on the number of people left to lie to, in business. Even Douche Bank have wised up.
Similarly Easter. I enjoy an Easter egg and hot cross bun like the next person as long as religion is not brought into it.
0 for reception:
"How come you can provide me with an ancient religious text but not a way to make coffee?"
"Well sir ..."
"Not interested. Just shove it."
Something similarly dramatic (and dishonest) on taxation is likely required if Starmer is going to achieve any fundamental reform of Britain.
He will have one shot at it. Will he be brave enough to go for it, and, if he does, what will he try to achieve?
Perhaps you should setup a world wide society to provide coffee making equipment to hotel rooms, as an act of charity?
David Cameron (PBUH*) said:
"We have got to get rid of all this green crap. We used to say: 'Vote blue, go green', now it's: 'Vote blue, get real'"
*is it still 'PBUH' now that he is risen once again to the dizzying heights of Foreign Secretary?
(I am not a Christian)
Actually I don't mind the bible being there and occasionally read bits from the Old Testament, as I do on the only times I attend church which are weddings, funerals and christenings.
A traditional definition of small cars is typically up to 4.2m length which excludes the Ford Focus, I agree, but it's a mistake to refer to the Focus as an example of a small car.
My own personal car is a Suzuki Swift. Dimensions: 3.86m length, 1.7m width.
Under any rational definition the Swift, which I bought this year new so is available on the market, is a small car.
Other models are available.
C1 was mentioned earlier. It's even smaller.
Dimensions: 3.466m length, 1.615m width.
Under what definition is the C1 not small?
He would be better off going the Cameron/Osborne route of 2010 and put some more radical reforms in, potentially sacrificing some seats but getting a mandate for change.
It was small, but persistent, with a few hundred votes in 1979 for the National Front, and 5.8% in Ashfield at the 2010 Election. There is more of a small heartland just in Derbyshire (Amber Valley) where they won a couple of council seats in Heanor at one stage, and used to have their national jamborees at iirc Old Denby.
What is perhaps unusual is that this is not traditional BNP ethnic-heavy territory, where hate politics can be marketed more easily.
But if LeeAnderthal goes chasing those he will be buried, I think. The demographic weight of the constituency is imo moving the other way over time; however I can't really comment on WWC pensioners. But it's notable to me that left-rhetoric against Anderson relies too much on traditional tropes ("rich, privileged Tory") which largely do not apply to him.
"Agriculture, food and related studies. The average graduate salary for this subject across all universities is £24,977 after five years."
That is only slightly above the minimum wage.
The pattern in the article is that the universities that claim to boost earnings are those that offer vocational courses especially those to adult learners like Birkbeck.
The Saxons and the Normans were just big on (re)building in stone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1972_Electoral_Map.png
Specifically: "Recall group analysis – the characteristics do not define the group, the group defines the characteristics" and "Group analysis – the analysis of groups of people voting together – can be objectively measured, reduced to numbers, and depicted by animations or graphs."
Categories are assigned by history and are difficult to handle when politics changes. Until things settle down (which won't be for years), it would be better to handle Reform by looking at the voting method of its MP (via Parliamentary voting records) and the people who vote for it (you can use a MRP for that). That will not be quick nor easily understandable, and a placeholder like "BRICS" or "the Five Families" may be needed.
CofE services are iirc "Publick Worship" by law, and there exists a right of access, subject to the power of arrest enjoyed by CofE Churchwardens for people causing disruption in church or churchyard, under Chapter 32 of The Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860.
The status of whether it's public or private doesn't change based on what I want, it's a matter of objective fact not subjective opinion.
Pharmacy has hugely changed. Back in the day students did a lot of science and manufacturing of ointments creams etc, but very little of the soft clinical skills. My colleague at Bath, who graduated in the mid 80's, did not do any clinical at all, as it was on Wednesday afternoons when he was playing rugby. In those days you learned science at Uni and clinical on the job.
I'm not most pharmacists would claim to be underemployed - many of the public have a very dim idea of what the pharmacist actually does at work. Very few actually dispense (at least not in the bigger companies) - thats a job for less well paid dispensers.
I do think it will help to have minor conditions being able to pharmacists prescribe treatment, but I think there are also other issues with GP's. A better approach might be to create more drop in GP centres in towns - turn up and wait. My son had an ear infection at the weekend. Full time wife took him to the minor injury unit in the next town (which functions as a walk in GP) and got treatment in less than an hour. If we had tried with the surgery we would still be waiting. GPs won't necessarily like them - being part of a GP practice can be very lucrative, but I think something needs to give.