Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
To avoid confusion I was suggesting the OPs should feel free not to wear a seatbelt. I wear a cycle helmet at least 99% of the time and always wear a seatbelt. I just get angry when people who are careless with the lives of others try to blame them for not wearing a helmet, hi-viz etc. When if they didn't speed, use their mobile, drive while unfit due to drink, drugs or tiredness and paid attention to the road then there wouldn't be accidents
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
Indeed, because the Dutch for decades have had a policy of investing heavily in building new roads and cycle paths to ensure capacity for both and to ensure both can be segregated.
In this country instead we've neglected to invest in new roads etc and the pro-cycling lobby, including most of such here on this site, would rather cannibalise existing roads into being repurposed for cycle lanes rather than following the Dutch policy of building new roads and cycle paths which has worked so well there.
We should do what the Dutch have done and invest in transport infrastructure. Build new roads and new cycle paths.
"A Glasgow councillor who quit Labour after making an unsubstantiated claim about a rise in "racist attacks on white children and teachers" has joined Reform.
Audrey Dempsey was suspended from Labour in April 2024 and later quit to sit as an independent after she was accused of making racist remarks.
She is now the second Reform councillor in Glasgow, joining the council's former Scottish Conservative group leader Thomas Kerr, who quit his party in January."
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
Particularly notable if, as is possible, there is a Parliamentary by-election here in due course.
London continues to resist the Reform juggernaut. If there is a by-election I hope the Lib Dems win which might wake up No 10 who seem obsessed with chasing Reform voters and have ignored their voters fleeing to the Lib Dems and Greens.
Particularly notable if, as is possible, there is a Parliamentary by-election here in due course.
London continues to resist the Reform juggernaut. If there is a by-election I hope the Lib Dems win which might wake up No 10 who seem obsessed with chasing Reform voters and have ignored their voters fleeing to the Lib Dems and Greens.
"The UK government did not do its own analysis of the cost of the biggest reorganisation of councils in England for decades, the BBC has learned.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said "a significant amount of money" could be saved by merging councils in 21 areas into single authorities.
Rayner's department, the ministry of local government, based its cost estimates on a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that said £2.9bn could be saved over five years.
But the CCN has since revised its analysis and now says the reorganisation could make no savings and actually cost money in some scenarios."
The most important thing that will happen to YourParty for a long time over the next couple of years is about to happen in the sense that the Green leadership ballot closed today.
When is the result? I'll slap a fiver on polanski to win on the weekend.
"The UK government did not do its own analysis of the cost of the biggest reorganisation of councils in England for decades, the BBC has learned.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said "a significant amount of money" could be saved by merging councils in 21 areas into single authorities.
Rayner's department, the ministry of local government, based its cost estimates on a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that said £2.9bn could be saved over five years.
But the CCN has since revised its analysis and now says the reorganisation could make no savings and actually cost money in some scenarios."
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
Really? I train a lot, and race, on a bike, often creating a lot of power, and am a sweaty exerciser. I never have a problem with my head getting too hot. Perhaps try a different helmet?
I've known two or three cyclists whose lives were saved by a helmet. One was hit by a car; his helmet was destroyed and he suffered head injuries, but without the helmet, his severe injuries would have been much worse. Another had a bike malfunction that sent him under a parked car. Again, the helmet was toast. And a teacher at school get seriously injured in a bike crash during a race. Apparently the helmet saved him as well.
An acquaintance always wore a helmet when cycling. Except one day at work, when he decided to nip a short distance to get some food for lunch and decided not to wear one. And he came off and woke up in A&E after smashing his head.
The "helmets don't help if you hit a 2-tonne vehicle" is bullshit. They may not save you, but you're better off than if you didn't wear one. Especially as many cycling accidents don't involve other cars.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
Not true at all, the car itself is a shield that protects the inhabitants of a car which cyclists lack. Also cyclists also lack air bags etc too.
Car inhabitants are far, far safer than cyclists are, and at far less risk of head injury, yet they're the ones who face the mandate on what to wear, in this instance seat belts.
As a former nurse I genuinely believe that if it was a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets in the UK it could really help prevent avoidable serious or fatal head injuries sustained by cyclists hit by cars, and so many years after it became the law that drivers had to wear seatbelts for safety reasons I struggle to understand why this has not already become a legal requirement for the same reasons.
I have a friend whose husband has been a keen cyclist for many years, he has always taken his safety when out daily on his bike in a really busy urban setting really seriously to the point that he always wore a helmet and extra reflective gear when cycling at night. He instilled that same safety ethic into his sons who like him became keen cyclists by the time they were in their teens. I still remember going to visit my friend the day after their 17 year old son had been knocked off his bike after being hit by a car on a roundabout on his way home from school, the accident caused him to hit his head off the kerb. He walked away from that accident very shaken and bruised but with his very solid helmet totally split in two from the impact!
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
Really? I train a lot, and race, on a bike, often creating a lot of power, and am a sweaty exerciser. I never have a problem with my head getting too hot. Perhaps try a different helmet?
I've known two or three cyclists whose lives were saved by a helmet. One was hit by a car; his helmet was destroyed and he suffered head injuries, but without the helmet, his severe injuries would have been much worse. Another had a bike malfunction that sent him under a parked car. Again, the helmet was toast. And a teacher at school get seriously injured in a bike crash during a race. Apparently the helmet saved him as well.
An acquaintance always wore a helmet when cycling. Except one day at work, when he decided to nip a short distance to get some food for lunch and decided not to wear one. And he came off and woke up in A&E after smashing his head.
The "helmets don't help if you hit a 2-tonne vehicle" is bullshit. They may not save you, but you're better off than if you didn't wear one. Especially as many cycling accidents don't involve other cars.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
It's also bizarre that cyclists are not required to wear any kind of helmet when moped riders are obliged to wear an approved safety helmet and can be prosecuted if they don't.
Mopeds are legally limited to 28mph, which is a speed I suspect all but the unfittest cyclist exceeds regularly.
Perhaps if there's a steep downhill. Tour de France averages 42km/hr (25mph), they're quite fit, probably use PED and they take turns on the front. You should try cycling sometime, it'll improve your driving
Exceeding a speed and averaging a speed are quite different. I see cyclists hitting 30mph+ almost every day as they fly through the centre of the village where I live - yes, that is a slight downhill but those are not exactly rare.
And FYI I have cycled thousands of miles (although not recently for health reasons) and do not, and have never, possessed a car licence. Making assumptions about people should be avoided as it can make you look like a twit.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
It's also bizarre that cyclists are not required to wear any kind of helmet when moped riders are obliged to wear an approved safety helmet and can be prosecuted if they don't.
Mopeds are legally limited to 28mph, which is a speed I suspect all but the unfittest cyclist exceeds regularly.
Perhaps if there's a steep downhill. Tour de France averages 42km/hr (25mph), they're quite fit, probably use PED and they take turns on the front. You should try cycling sometime, it'll improve your driving
Exceeding a speed and averaging a speed are quite different. I see cyclists hitting 30mph+ almost every day as they fly through the centre of the village where I live - yes, that is a slight downhill but those are not exactly rare.
And FYI I have cycled thousands of miles (although not recently for health reasons) and do not, and have never, possessed a car licence. Making assumptions about people should be avoided as it can make you look like a twit.
I've just checked my last ride; a 62 KM looping leisure ride into Cambridge (so some *very* slow sections in traffic). Not very hilly, and a zone-2 effort (in other words, not really trying).
Average speed 24 km/h; Max speed 45.3 km/h. That is 15 mph and 28 mph.
Changes from 20th August [Find Out Now, 27th August, N=2,538]
Suboptimal for Lab and Con
With Ladbrokes suggesting an election this year they must be shitting themselves.
Reform have been on a plateau for a while now, 4 months I reckon. Despite the attempts of you and your mates in the right wing press to to drum up a violent summer, the Reform vote share has remained static since April. I think the immigration lemon has been squeezed dry. You could easily cruise at this level for 3-4 years and win the next election or something could happen that shifts the focus from immigration. In which case you need to start looking at what else your party has to offer.
Reform are a one trick pony and have only Trumpist garbage to inflict on the country . They need immigration and the boats to remain top of the agenda .
It’s noticeable how they’ve moved the goalposts on legal migration . Realising that the numbers are likely to come down significantly they now want zero net migration which is unworkable and a fantasy but they’ll attempt to dupe the gullible.
Changes from 20th August [Find Out Now, 27th August, N=2,538]
Suboptimal for Lab and Con
With Ladbrokes suggesting an election this year they must be shitting themselves.
Reform have been on a plateau for a while now, 4 months I reckon. Despite the attempts of you and your mates in the right wing press to to drum up a violent summer, the Reform vote share has remained static since April. I think the immigration lemon has been squeezed dry. You could easily cruise at this level for 3-4 years and win the next election or something could happen that shifts the focus from immigration. In which case you need to start looking at what else your party has to offer.
Reform are a one trick pony and have only Trumpist garbage to inflict on the country . They need immigration and the boats to remain top of the agenda .
It’s noticeable how they’ve moved the goalposts on legal migration . Realising that the numbers are likely to come down significantly they now want zero net migration which is unworkable and a fantasy but they’ll attempt to dupe the gullible.
Why is it unworkable?
A lot depends on what Brits themselves are doing.
Sure. Doesn’t make it “unworkable” though
In the context of a workforce that is declining in size, while the demand for employees appears still to be increasing, and with public finances clearly needing some economic growth, it would at the least be highly problematic.
You don't need to bang your head much to damage it. Ten years ago, I slipped on a slipway in the middle of nowhere and fractured my elbow. I also banged my head enough to have a severe headache. I only fell from standing height.
Six months later, I was hospitalised with viral meningitis. The docs asked if I had suffered any head injury recently, and the working assumption (unprovable...) is that I damaged the blood-brain barrier in the fall, which allowed the virus in. Six months seems a long time though.
Changes from 20th August [Find Out Now, 27th August, N=2,538]
Suboptimal for Lab and Con
With Ladbrokes suggesting an election this year they must be shitting themselves.
Reform have been on a plateau for a while now, 4 months I reckon. Despite the attempts of you and your mates in the right wing press to to drum up a violent summer, the Reform vote share has remained static since April. I think the immigration lemon has been squeezed dry. You could easily cruise at this level for 3-4 years and win the next election or something could happen that shifts the focus from immigration. In which case you need to start looking at what else your party has to offer.
Reform are a one trick pony and have only Trumpist garbage to inflict on the country . They need immigration and the boats to remain top of the agenda .
It’s noticeable how they’ve moved the goalposts on legal migration . Realising that the numbers are likely to come down significantly they now want zero net migration which is unworkable and a fantasy but they’ll attempt to dupe the gullible.
Why is it unworkable?
A lot depends on what Brits themselves are doing.
Sure. Doesn’t make it “unworkable” though
In the context of a workforce that is declining in size, while the demand for employees appears still to be increasing, and with public finances clearly needing some economic growth, it would at the least be highly problematic.
It’s not a good idea. But I was picking up specifically on @nico679 ’s high handed fidmisssl if it as “unworkable”.
You could - for example - ban all immigration. Stupid idea, but doable.
Good to see Labour consistency. From finding a way to cut benefits while costing the Treasury more money, to cost-cutting by merging councils, only for it to apparently save nothing and potentially cost more, back to talking down the economy for six months then being shocked confidence is sliding, it's an unusual theme to choose.
"Rayner's department, the ministry of local government, based its cost estimates on a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that said £2.9bn could be saved over five years.
But the CCN has since revised its analysis and now says the reorganisation could make no savings and actually cost money in some scenarios."
Anyhow, the better news is that in the two by-elections last night, Reform got absolutely nowhere in the London one and in Notts fell short, if not by much. And these are by-elections, where protest and people with a grievance would be expected to have more prominence than in a GE.
Despite the latest polls and all the talk of PM Farage, my feeling remains that when it comes to it, many of the current loudmouths won’t actually turn out and vote, and there will be some drift back to the established parties, such that while Reform might poll strongly in certain types of seat, they’re not going to sweep the country, but might get a significant bloc of MPs from the stronger Leave seats.
That, combined with Labour possibly losing its majority and the LDs still looking to poll well, sets the scene for a Parliament that finally delivers electoral reform.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
The Netherlands are a cyclists paradise. Cycle culture* is so key there that bike lanes are large, respected by both motorists and pedestrians, have their own lights and signals etc that they can be quite safe even without helmets. Britain has nowhere like that, not even in Cambridge.
I lost two acquaintances to cycling head injuries back in the Eighties when helmets were rarely worn, and another one to horse-riding without a helmet. I wouldn't ride without.
* I was chatting to a Dutch doctor about health issues relating to ethnic minorities once at a conference. She told me that learning to cycle (if physically able) is considered so fundamental there that it is part of the citizenship test.
Anyhow, the better news is that in the two by-elections last night, Reform got absolutely nowhere in the London one and in Notts fell short, if not by much. And these are by-elections, where protest and people with a grievance would be expected to have more prominence than in a GE.
Despite the latest polls and all the talk of PM Farage, my feeling remains that when it comes to it, many of the current loudmouths won’t actually turn out and vote, and there will be some drift back to the established parties, such that while Reform might poll strongly in certain types of seat, they’re not going to sweep the country, but might get a significant bloc of MPs from the stronger Leave seats.
That, combined with Labour possibly losing its majority and the LDs still looking to poll well, sets the scene for a Parliament that finally delivers electoral reform.
I am surprised that we had no reports from eccentric millionaires, lefty drinking companions or Albanian taxi drivers picking up the strong swing to the LibDems in the area, rather than a Reform surge.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
The Netherlands are a cyclists paradise. Cycle culture* is so key there that bike lanes are large, respected by both motorists and pedestrians, have their own lights and signals etc that they can be quite safe even without helmets. Britain has nowhere like that, not even in Cambridge.
I lost two acquaintances to cycling head injuries back in the Eighties when helmets were rarely worn, and another one to horse-riding without a helmet. I wouldn't ride without.
* I was chatting to a Dutch doctor about health issues relating to ethnic minorities once at a conference. She told me that learning to cycle (if physically able) is considered so fundamental there that it is part of the citizenship test.
I'd argue that Cambridge is really poor for cycling, from an infrastructure pov - though improving. There are relatively few 'good' cycle paths, especially ones that go where people want to go, and the roads can be riddled with potholes.
Perhaps (and this is only a guess...) the quantity of cyclists makes a difference: the fact there are so many cyclists, makes drivers and other road users more alert to their presence. Though it's a shame so many cyclists in the city act like utter tw@ts though.
So, he had four full time jobs at different councils all at once. And he claimed the equivalent salary etc for all of them. And lied about his employment status and falsified salary sheets.
And yet, nobody disputes that he actually did the work involved in all four jobs.
Doesn’t that rather suggest these jobs were not actually full time?
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
The Netherlands are a cyclists paradise. Cycle culture* is so key there that bike lanes are large, respected by both motorists and pedestrians, have their own lights and signals etc that they can be quite safe even without helmets. Britain has nowhere like that, not even in Cambridge.
I lost two acquaintances to cycling head injuries back in the Eighties when helmets were rarely worn, and another one to horse-riding without a helmet. I wouldn't ride without.
* I was chatting to a Dutch doctor about health issues relating to ethnic minorities once at a conference. She told me that learning to cycle (if physically able) is considered so fundamental there that it is part of the citizenship test.
I'd argue that Cambridge is really poor for cycling, from an infrastructure pov - though improving. There are relatively few 'good' cycle paths, especially ones that go where people want to go, and the roads can be riddled with potholes.
Perhaps (and this is only a guess...) the quantity of cyclists makes a difference: the fact there are so many cyclists, makes drivers and other road users more alert to their presence. Though it's a shame so many cyclists in the city act like utter tw@ts though.
Cambridge is best for cycling in the UK, but still nowhere near the Dutch or Danish. I agree too that a key part of their cycle culture is good road behaviour by cyclists too.
It was in Cambridge that one of my acquaintances died while riding a cycle. She was a brilliant medical student and would have had a sensational career.
Good to see Labour consistency. From finding a way to cut benefits while costing the Treasury more money, to cost-cutting by merging councils, only for it to apparently save nothing and potentially cost more, back to talking down the economy for six months then being shocked confidence is sliding, it's an unusual theme to choose.
"Rayner's department, the ministry of local government, based its cost estimates on a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that said £2.9bn could be saved over five years.
But the CCN has since revised its analysis and now says the reorganisation could make no savings and actually cost money in some scenarios."
There is a wider issue here with the quality of official data and forecasts made by various official bodies. ONS, OBR, now the CCN's £3 billion savings have evaporated. #ClassicDom made similar complaints about Covid data during the pandemic but the analogy here is perhaps with the early years of the First World War, where Generals behind in the rear had no real time information or even communication with the front lines, using motorcycle couriers to relay messages, and having to waste a day travelling to the front lines to see for themselves because they did not trust what was told to them.
"The manufacturer of Mounjaro has apologised to UK patients who are "experiencing interruption" due to their sharp price increase and admitted that political pressure from Donald Trump influenced its decision. In its first interview since announcing the price hike, Eli Lilly’s Medical Associate Vice President, Emily Pegg, told ITV News Health Correspondent Rebecca Barry the drug’s slow NHS rollout increases the risk of people turning to the black market."
I admit I was wrong: I thought the idea that Trump's actions would make companies increase prices worldwide was fanciful and contra how markets operate. After all, why would the price be lower than achievable in that market in the first place? Turns out, sometimes, extreme political pressure can do just that.
Presumably that means less profit in those markets - otherwise why not price that way in the first place. But appeasing Trump must be worth it...
Or the company could just be greedy. Telling someone how much to increase the price of a particular drug is very granular detail.
You don't need to bang your head much to damage it. Ten years ago, I slipped on a slipway in the middle of nowhere and fractured my elbow. I also banged my head enough to have a severe headache. I only fell from standing height.
Six months later, I was hospitalised with viral meningitis. The docs asked if I had suffered any head injury recently, and the working assumption (unprovable...) is that I damaged the blood-brain barrier in the fall, which allowed the virus in. Six months seems a long time though.
Your noggin is valuable, but also delicate.
I did a culpable homicide (manslaughter) trial recently where the evidence was that there had been a single punch to the eye which had caused a subdural haemorrhage and almost instant death. It was startling how easy this was although the fact that the deceased had been drinking and taking cocaine were aggravating factors in terms of causation. Both men were found guilty in concert for the death and are awaiting sentence. It brought home to me how problematic blows to the head are whether by violence or otherwise.
So, he had four full time jobs at different councils all at once. And he claimed the equivalent salary etc for all of them. And lied about his employment status and falsified salary sheets.
And yet, nobody disputes that he actually did the work involved in all four jobs.
Doesn’t that rather suggest these jobs were not actually full time?
A friend of mine who works as a chartered accountant in the council sector had a mid life crisis a couple of years back. He reckoned if he really stretched it out, he could make the work last half a day a week. He’d DIY’d his whole house, sorted the garden. And was bored bored bored. So he quit. It would be a fascinating experiment to impose 40% cuts across the board in all administration roles in the state sector but give those that remained performance related pay.
Anyhow, the better news is that in the two by-elections last night, Reform got absolutely nowhere in the London one and in Notts fell short, if not by much. And these are by-elections, where protest and people with a grievance would be expected to have more prominence than in a GE.
Despite the latest polls and all the talk of PM Farage, my feeling remains that when it comes to it, many of the current loudmouths won’t actually turn out and vote, and there will be some drift back to the established parties, such that while Reform might poll strongly in certain types of seat, they’re not going to sweep the country, but might get a significant bloc of MPs from the stronger Leave seats.
That, combined with Labour possibly losing its majority and the LDs still looking to poll well, sets the scene for a Parliament that finally delivers electoral reform.
I am surprised that we had no reports from eccentric millionaires, lefty drinking companions or Albanian taxi drivers picking up the strong swing to the LibDems in the area, rather than a Reform surge.
I knew they'd win there, probably by miles, and said so on PB earlier this week. I had no need to make up some third character in order to make my prediction apparently more credible.
So, he had four full time jobs at different councils all at once. And he claimed the equivalent salary etc for all of them. And lied about his employment status and falsified salary sheets.
And yet, nobody disputes that he actually did the work involved in all four jobs.
Doesn’t that rather suggest these jobs were not actually full time?
A friend of mine who works as a chartered accountant in the council sector had a mid life crisis a couple of years back. He reckoned if he really stretched it out, he could make the work last half a day a week. He’d DIY’d his whole house, sorted the garden. And was bored bored bored. So he quit. It would be a fascinating experiment to impose 40% cuts across the board in all administration roles in the state sector but give those that remained performance related pay.
I had a case with a surveyor some years ago now. He had worked for the local authority for a time but found the work allocated to him could be done by 11 at the latest. He was under a lot of pressure to drag it out by the other surveyors but again got so bored he just left. So far as the man with 4 jobs is concerned an obvious saving would be his managers in the various roles because they are clearly completely incompetent.
"The manufacturer of Mounjaro has apologised to UK patients who are "experiencing interruption" due to their sharp price increase and admitted that political pressure from Donald Trump influenced its decision. In its first interview since announcing the price hike, Eli Lilly’s Medical Associate Vice President, Emily Pegg, told ITV News Health Correspondent Rebecca Barry the drug’s slow NHS rollout increases the risk of people turning to the black market."
I admit I was wrong: I thought the idea that Trump's actions would make companies increase prices worldwide was fanciful and contra how markets operate. After all, why would the price be lower than achievable in that market in the first place? Turns out, sometimes, extreme political pressure can do just that.
Presumably that means less profit in those markets - otherwise why not price that way in the first place. But appeasing Trump must be worth it...
Or the company could just be greedy. Telling someone how much to increase the price of a particular drug is very granular detail.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders to be as greedy as they can get away with. The key bit being judging how much they can get away with.
So, he had four full time jobs at different councils all at once. And he claimed the equivalent salary etc for all of them. And lied about his employment status and falsified salary sheets.
And yet, nobody disputes that he actually did the work involved in all four jobs.
Doesn’t that rather suggest these jobs were not actually full time?
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
Really? I train a lot, and race, on a bike, often creating a lot of power, and am a sweaty exerciser. I never have a problem with my head getting too hot. Perhaps try a different helmet?
I've known two or three cyclists whose lives were saved by a helmet. One was hit by a car; his helmet was destroyed and he suffered head injuries, but without the helmet, his severe injuries would have been much worse. Another had a bike malfunction that sent him under a parked car. Again, the helmet was toast. And a teacher at school get seriously injured in a bike crash during a race. Apparently the helmet saved him as well.
An acquaintance always wore a helmet when cycling. Except one day at work, when he decided to nip a short distance to get some food for lunch and decided not to wear one. And he came off and woke up in A&E after smashing his head.
The "helmets don't help if you hit a 2-tonne vehicle" is bullshit. They may not save you, but you're better off than if you didn't wear one. Especially as many cycling accidents don't involve other cars.
WEAR A HELMET WHEN CYCLING.
There's an interesting set of tradeoffs here. Bike helmets are unpleasant to wear, it's one of the "cycling downsides" like the fact you get soaked when it rains which put people off using bikes as a mode of transport, even in situations where they are quite good.
Given the substantial health benefits of cycling, would it actually be better not to encourage people to wear helmets so vigorously (to the point that it's virtually socially unacceptable not to wear one), and thus have more people cycle and get those health benefits, even if you there are a few more head injuries along the way.
It's worth noting that we'd save a lot of head injuries by wearing helmets all the time, not just when cycling - but we don't, because the inconvenience outweighs the benefits. A friend of a friend's wife fell down a flight of stairs and died a couple of weeks ago, leaving him widowed with an 18 month old boy to bring up, but no-one has asked why she wasn't wearing a helmet, or started a charity to promote wearing helmets on the stairs etc...
I have to apologise to Luckyguy. While his suggestions regarding QE were economically eccentric, and essentially ignored the costs of what he was proposing, the recent sharp rise in interest rates has somewhat changed the situation. And while his remedy might well have been as bad as the problem he was seeking to address, he was quite right to identify a large problem which the rest of us really didn't.
In the environment, the BoE continuing its program of steadily unwinding QE (something which theEU and the US aren't doing) effectively means that it takes very large losses on its continuing gilt sales - which also help depress market prices, and create something of a downward spiral. Also the banks are now making outsize profits (something never intended) by virtue of the scheme.
The IPPR has a report out which makes some much more sensible, and quite simple suggestions to address those two things.
You can download the full report here:
https://www.ippr.org/articles/fixing-the-leak ..after a period of making significant profits on this programme, the Bank of England is now making record losses, which is historically very unusual for central banks. The Treasury is paying for these losses, making the UK an international outlier, and the sums involved are staggering: Bank of England losses will cost the taxpayer £22 billion a year in every year of this parliament. These losses come from two sources: valuation losses from selling government bonds below purchase value; and interest rate losses. In this report we recommend a two-pronged approach to address this issue. First, to recoup interest rate losses for the taxpayer currently occurring at the Bank of England, the government should implement a ‘QE reserves income levy’ on commercial banks. Second, the government should urge the Bank of England to review and better manage the fiscal implications of its policies, in particular slowing the pace of the unwinding of quantitative easing – so-called quantitative tightening – and any future quantitative easing.
Seems like a no brainer for a Chancellor desperate for cash. With very little downside.
I don’t understand your weird rules re stamp duty. It is reported that Angela Rayner has declared her new pad in Hove as her main residence in order to reduce the potential stamp duty amount.
How is it that the tax authorities do not reject this as they could make the argument that she owns a house in her constituency, where her job is tied to, represents as an MP and the other part of her job is covered by work provided accommodation and so there is no argument that can reasonably be used to say that the Hove apartment is her main home.
And if she argued that she will be spending most of her time in Hove then surely her constituents/employers should have a say if they are happy with that.
I’m guessing loads of MPs of all stripes do this.
Do HMRC not question this? Is it a rule that needs fixing? It might be that it’s a good thing as it greases the wheels of the market and economy but seems a bit odd that you can just change which is your main home and HMRC have to accept it when it’s very questionable.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
I'm aware of this, but I still saw huge numbers of cyclists riding down standard roads in Amsterdam, next to road traffic, and none of them were wearing helmets. On the other hand, this was nearly 10 years ago, so things may have changed since then. I basically can't ride a bike with a helmet because my head gets so hot within a short time that it becomes uncomfortable.
Really? I train a lot, and race, on a bike, often creating a lot of power, and am a sweaty exerciser. I never have a problem with my head getting too hot. Perhaps try a different helmet?
I've known two or three cyclists whose lives were saved by a helmet. One was hit by a car; his helmet was destroyed and he suffered head injuries, but without the helmet, his severe injuries would have been much worse. Another had a bike malfunction that sent him under a parked car. Again, the helmet was toast. And a teacher at school get seriously injured in a bike crash during a race. Apparently the helmet saved him as well.
An acquaintance always wore a helmet when cycling. Except one day at work, when he decided to nip a short distance to get some food for lunch and decided not to wear one. And he came off and woke up in A&E after smashing his head.
The "helmets don't help if you hit a 2-tonne vehicle" is bullshit. They may not save you, but you're better off than if you didn't wear one. Especially as many cycling accidents don't involve other cars.
WEAR A HELMET WHEN CYCLING.
There's an interesting set of tradeoffs here. Bike helmets are unpleasant to wear, it's one of the "cycling downsides" like the fact you get soaked when it rains which put people off using bikes as a mode of transport, even in situations where they are quite good.
Given the substantial health benefits of cycling, would it actually be better not to encourage people to wear helmets so vigorously (to the point that it's virtually socially unacceptable not to wear one), and thus have more people cycle and get those health benefits, even if you there are a few more head injuries along the way.
It's worth noting that we'd save a lot of head injuries by wearing helmets all the time, not just when cycling - but we don't, because the inconvenience outweighs the benefits. A friend of a friend's wife fell down a flight of stairs and died a couple of weeks ago, leaving him widowed with an 18 month old boy to bring up, but no-one has asked why she wasn't wearing a helmet, or started a charity to promote wearing helmets on the stairs etc...
"Bike helmets are unpleasant to wear, "
I disagree with that broad-brush statement. I rarely find mine uncomfortable. The annoyances are a) when insects fly into it (especially bees), or I get an itch beneath it. Otherwise it is fine.
I look forward to you calling for no helmets to be worn on building sites. Wearing (or not wearing) should be done on a situational basis according to risk, and cycling - where you have speed as a factor - is different from walking about.
I have to apologise to Luckyguy. While his suggestions regarding QE were economically eccentric, and essentially ignored the costs of what he was proposing, the recent sharp rise in interest rates has somewhat changed the situation. And while his remedy might well have been as bad as the problem he was seeking to address, he was quite right to identify a large problem which the rest of us really didn't.
In the environment, the BoE continuing its program of steadily unwinding QE (something which theEU and the US aren't doing) effectively means that it takes very large losses on its continuing gilt sales - which also help depress market prices, and create something of a downward spiral. Also the banks are now making outsize profits (something never intended) by virtue of the scheme.
The IPPR has a report out which makes some much more sensible, and quite simple suggestions to address those two things.
You can download the full report here:
https://www.ippr.org/articles/fixing-the-leak ..after a period of making significant profits on this programme, the Bank of England is now making record losses, which is historically very unusual for central banks. The Treasury is paying for these losses, making the UK an international outlier, and the sums involved are staggering: Bank of England losses will cost the taxpayer £22 billion a year in every year of this parliament. These losses come from two sources: valuation losses from selling government bonds below purchase value; and interest rate losses. In this report we recommend a two-pronged approach to address this issue. First, to recoup interest rate losses for the taxpayer currently occurring at the Bank of England, the government should implement a ‘QE reserves income levy’ on commercial banks. Second, the government should urge the Bank of England to review and better manage the fiscal implications of its policies, in particular slowing the pace of the unwinding of quantitative easing – so-called quantitative tightening – and any future quantitative easing.
Seems like a no brainer for a Chancellor desperate for cash. With very little downside.
There was a good interview on Today about it this morning (luckily it wasn’t a day Taylor Swift did something so was time for it), I did laugh wondering if it was Luckyguy doing the interview.
I have to apologise to Luckyguy. While his suggestions regarding QE were economically eccentric, and essentially ignored the costs of what he was proposing, the recent sharp rise in interest rates has somewhat changed the situation. And while his remedy might well have been as bad as the problem he was seeking to address, he was quite right to identify a large problem which the rest of us really didn't.
In the environment, the BoE continuing its program of steadily unwinding QE (something which theEU and the US aren't doing) effectively means that it takes very large losses on its continuing gilt sales - which also help depress market prices, and create something of a downward spiral. Also the banks are now making outsize profits (something never intended) by virtue of the scheme.
The IPPR has a report out which makes some much more sensible, and quite simple suggestions to address those two things.
You can download the full report here:
https://www.ippr.org/articles/fixing-the-leak ..after a period of making significant profits on this programme, the Bank of England is now making record losses, which is historically very unusual for central banks. The Treasury is paying for these losses, making the UK an international outlier, and the sums involved are staggering: Bank of England losses will cost the taxpayer £22 billion a year in every year of this parliament. These losses come from two sources: valuation losses from selling government bonds below purchase value; and interest rate losses. In this report we recommend a two-pronged approach to address this issue. First, to recoup interest rate losses for the taxpayer currently occurring at the Bank of England, the government should implement a ‘QE reserves income levy’ on commercial banks. Second, the government should urge the Bank of England to review and better manage the fiscal implications of its policies, in particular slowing the pace of the unwinding of quantitative easing – so-called quantitative tightening – and any future quantitative easing.
Seems like a no brainer for a Chancellor desperate for cash. With very little downside.
We may need to do this but the downside risks are considerable. Firstly, with our 30 year gilt at or near record levels it is clear that there is limited demand for UK debt. Making gilts less attractive with taxes on profits such as suggested would, in my view, substantially increase the risk of failed auctions. Secondly, our monetary position is so lacking in credibility that we perhaps need to be "stricter" on ourselves by QT even if the US and the ECB doesn't.
These pressures are indicative of the forthcoming crisis in our fiscal affairs. Borrowing is increasing far faster than the economy is growing and the trends are not favourable. Sooner or later this bubble is going to burst and the Chancellor needs to be extremely careful about anything that might prick it. Brace.
The distressing story of the axe-wielding girl from Dundee gets murkier and murkier
It seems like people that leapt to conclusions on BOTH sides now look a little foolish
Thank goodness that you weren’t one of those leaping to conclusions for ‘your’ side.
I believe your daughter is going to uni not far from Dundee. Will you be recommending carrying an axe or a knife for visits to the ‘Dee?
Go back and check the original story. All I said was - “what the hell is going on here - why js a 14 year old girl carrying an axe around Dundee? Can any Scottish PBErs help elucidate the story?”
That’s it. That’s what I said. I asked a question about a weird video because I sensed it would go viral - as it has
Zero “leaping to conclusions”. Not even speculation
Others have speculated since and possibly prematurely, it’s a very strange and sad story and weirder details keep emerging
So, he had four full time jobs at different councils all at once. And he claimed the equivalent salary etc for all of them. And lied about his employment status and falsified salary sheets.
And yet, nobody disputes that he actually did the work involved in all four jobs.
Doesn’t that rather suggest these jobs were not actually full time?
Sums up public jobs , bloated and inefficient with little or no management skills or oversight.
The distressing story of the axe-wielding girl from Dundee gets murkier and murkier
It seems like people that leapt to conclusions on BOTH sides now look a little foolish
Thank goodness that you weren’t one of those leaping to conclusions for ‘your’ side.
I believe your daughter is going to uni not far from Dundee. Will you be recommending carrying an axe or a knife for visits to the ‘Dee?
Go back and check the original story. All I said was - “what the hell is going on here - why js a 14 year old girl carrying an axe around Dundee? Can any Scottish PBErs help elucidate the story?”
That’s it. That’s what I said. I asked a question about a weird video because I sensed it would go viral - as it has
Zero “leaping to conclusions”. Not even speculation
Others have speculated since and possibly prematurely, it’s a very strange and sad story and weirder details keep emerging
She has also been turned into a global meme
Huge ‘I’m only asking questions’ vibe, not dissimilar to ar Nige & other rsoles over Southport. If only you were a bit more famous you could have set off a riot.
So, he had four full time jobs at different councils all at once. And he claimed the equivalent salary etc for all of them. And lied about his employment status and falsified salary sheets.
And yet, nobody disputes that he actually did the work involved in all four jobs.
Doesn’t that rather suggest these jobs were not actually full time?
Sums up public jobs , bloated and inefficient with little or no management skills or oversight.
Yup, and the lazy feckers want to drop a day a week, keep the same salary and can do the same work.
I don’t understand your weird rules re stamp duty. It is reported that Angela Rayner has declared her new pad in Hove as her main residence in order to reduce the potential stamp duty amount.
How is it that the tax authorities do not reject this as they could make the argument that she owns a house in her constituency, where her job is tied to, represents as an MP and the other part of her job is covered by work provided accommodation and so there is no argument that can reasonably be used to say that the Hove apartment is her main home.
And if she argued that she will be spending most of her time in Hove then surely her constituents/employers should have a say if they are happy with that.
I’m guessing loads of MPs of all stripes do this.
Do HMRC not question this? Is it a rule that needs fixing? It might be that it’s a good thing as it greases the wheels of the market and economy but seems a bit odd that you can just change which is your main home and HMRC have to accept it when it’s very questionable.
They are politician's tyhey are always picking our pockets and filling their own. Rules and laws are not for them. Greedy grasping chancers, how else could this supposed working class single mother fork out 800K for a holiday home.
I don’t understand your weird rules re stamp duty. It is reported that Angela Rayner has declared her new pad in Hove as her main residence in order to reduce the potential stamp duty amount.
How is it that the tax authorities do not reject this as they could make the argument that she owns a house in her constituency, where her job is tied to, represents as an MP and the other part of her job is covered by work provided accommodation and so there is no argument that can reasonably be used to say that the Hove apartment is her main home.
And if she argued that she will be spending most of her time in Hove then surely her constituents/employers should have a say if they are happy with that.
I’m guessing loads of MPs of all stripes do this.
Do HMRC not question this? Is it a rule that needs fixing? It might be that it’s a good thing as it greases the wheels of the market and economy but seems a bit odd that you can just change which is your main home and HMRC have to accept it when it’s very questionable.
It’s worse than that.
She has told her local council in he constituency that it’s her main home for the purposes of council tax.
Comments
I wear a cycle helmet at least 99% of the time and always wear a seatbelt. I just get angry when people who are careless with the lives of others try to blame them for not wearing a helmet, hi-viz etc. When if they didn't speed, use their mobile, drive while unfit due to drink, drugs or tiredness and paid attention to the road then there wouldn't be accidents
In this country instead we've neglected to invest in new roads etc and the pro-cycling lobby, including most of such here on this site, would rather cannibalise existing roads into being repurposed for cycle lanes rather than following the Dutch policy of building new roads and cycle paths which has worked so well there.
We should do what the Dutch have done and invest in transport infrastructure. Build new roads and new cycle paths.
Audrey Dempsey was suspended from Labour in April 2024 and later quit to sit as an independent after she was accused of making racist remarks.
She is now the second Reform councillor in Glasgow, joining the council's former Scottish Conservative group leader Thomas Kerr, who quit his party in January."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly350nq3dgo
Election Maps UK@ElectionMapsUK
Nuthall East & Strelley (Broxtowe) Council By-Election Result:
🌳 CON: 28.6% (-16.5)
➡️ RFM: 28.3% (New)
🏘️ BA: 19.4% (New)
🌹 LAB: 17.2% (-20.1)
🌍 GRN: 4.9% (-6.7)
🙋 Ind: 1.5% (New)
No LDM (-5.9) as previous.
Conservative HOLD.
Changes w/ 2023.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1961200853081080261
Lib Dem GAIN from Labour
🔶LD- 1176- 54.4%
🔴LAB- 458- 21.2%
🔵CON- 222- 10.3%
➡️RFM- 155- 7.2%
🟢GRN- 152- 7.0%
Particularly notable if, as is possible, there is a Parliamentary by-election here in due course.
Election Maps UK@ElectionMapsUK
West Hampstead (Camden) Council By-Election Result:
🔶 LDM: 54.4% (+15.4)
🌹 LAB: 21.2% (-23.4)
🌳 CON: 10.3% (-6.3)
➡️ RFM: 7.2% (New)
🌍 GRN: 7.0% (New)
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2022.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1961214312380600663
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said "a significant amount of money" could be saved by merging councils in 21 areas into single authorities.
Rayner's department, the ministry of local government, based its cost estimates on a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that said £2.9bn could be saved over five years.
But the CCN has since revised its analysis and now says the reorganisation could make no savings and actually cost money in some scenarios."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9wxnlnrxdo
I've known two or three cyclists whose lives were saved by a helmet. One was hit by a car; his helmet was destroyed and he suffered head injuries, but without the helmet, his severe injuries would have been much worse. Another had a bike malfunction that sent him under a parked car. Again, the helmet was toast. And a teacher at school get seriously injured in a bike crash during a race. Apparently the helmet saved him as well.
An acquaintance always wore a helmet when cycling. Except one day at work, when he decided to nip a short distance to get some food for lunch and decided not to wear one. And he came off and woke up in A&E after smashing his head.
The "helmets don't help if you hit a 2-tonne vehicle" is bullshit. They may not save you, but you're better off than if you didn't wear one. Especially as many cycling accidents don't involve other cars.
WEAR A HELMET WHEN CYCLING.
I have a friend whose husband has been a keen cyclist for many years, he has always taken his safety when out daily on his bike in a really busy urban setting really seriously to the point that he always wore a helmet and extra reflective gear when cycling at night. He instilled that same safety ethic into his sons who like him became keen cyclists by the time they were in their teens. I still remember going to visit my friend the day after their 17 year old son had been knocked off his bike after being hit by a car on a roundabout on his way home from school, the accident caused him to hit his head off the kerb. He walked away from that accident very shaken and bruised but with his very solid helmet totally split in two from the impact!
And FYI I have cycled thousands of miles (although not recently for health reasons) and do not, and have never, possessed a car licence. Making assumptions about people should be avoided as it can make you look like a twit.
Average speed 24 km/h; Max speed 45.3 km/h. That is 15 mph and 28 mph.
You don't need to bang your head much to damage it. Ten years ago, I slipped on a slipway in the middle of nowhere and fractured my elbow. I also banged my head enough to have a severe headache. I only fell from standing height.
Six months later, I was hospitalised with viral meningitis. The docs asked if I had suffered any head injury recently, and the working assumption (unprovable...) is that I damaged the blood-brain barrier in the fall, which allowed the virus in. Six months seems a long time though.
Your noggin is valuable, but also delicate.
You could - for example - ban all immigration. Stupid idea, but doable.
Good to see Labour consistency. From finding a way to cut benefits while costing the Treasury more money, to cost-cutting by merging councils, only for it to apparently save nothing and potentially cost more, back to talking down the economy for six months then being shocked confidence is sliding, it's an unusual theme to choose.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9wxnlnrxdo
"Rayner's department, the ministry of local government, based its cost estimates on a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that said £2.9bn could be saved over five years.
But the CCN has since revised its analysis and now says the reorganisation could make no savings and actually cost money in some scenarios."
Despite the latest polls and all the talk of PM Farage, my feeling remains that when it comes to it, many of the current loudmouths won’t actually turn out and vote, and there will be some drift back to the established parties, such that while Reform might poll strongly in certain types of seat, they’re not going to sweep the country, but might get a significant bloc of MPs from the stronger Leave seats.
That, combined with Labour possibly losing its majority and the LDs still looking to poll well, sets the scene for a Parliament that finally delivers electoral reform.
I lost two acquaintances to cycling head injuries back in the Eighties when helmets were rarely worn, and another one to horse-riding without a helmet. I wouldn't ride without.
* I was chatting to a Dutch doctor about health issues relating to ethnic minorities once at a conference. She told me that learning to cycle (if physically able) is considered so fundamental there that it is part of the citizenship test.
Perhaps (and this is only a guess...) the quantity of cyclists makes a difference: the fact there are so many cyclists, makes drivers and other road users more alert to their presence. Though it's a shame so many cyclists in the city act like utter tw@ts though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dp7m4yv2xo
So, he had four full time jobs at different councils all at once. And he claimed the equivalent salary etc for all of them. And lied about his employment status and falsified salary sheets.
And yet, nobody disputes that he actually did the work involved in all four jobs.
Doesn’t that rather suggest these jobs were not actually full time?
It was in Cambridge that one of my acquaintances died while riding a cycle. She was a brilliant medical student and would have had a sensational career.
It's why private monopolies are such a problem.
It seems like people that leapt to conclusions on BOTH sides now look a little foolish
If you do a few minutes of searching you will get the gist
Given the substantial health benefits of cycling, would it actually be better not to encourage people to wear helmets so vigorously (to the point that it's virtually socially unacceptable not to wear one), and thus have more people cycle and get those health benefits, even if you there are a few more head injuries along the way.
It's worth noting that we'd save a lot of head injuries by wearing helmets all the time, not just when cycling - but we don't, because the inconvenience outweighs the benefits. A friend of a friend's wife fell down a flight of stairs and died a couple of weeks ago, leaving him widowed with an 18 month old boy to bring up, but no-one has asked why she wasn't wearing a helmet, or started a charity to promote wearing helmets on the stairs etc...
While his suggestions regarding QE were economically eccentric, and essentially ignored the costs of what he was proposing, the recent sharp rise in interest rates has somewhat changed the situation. And while his remedy might well have been as bad as the problem he was seeking to address, he was quite right to identify a large problem which the rest of us really didn't.
In the environment, the BoE continuing its program of steadily unwinding QE (something which theEU and the US aren't doing) effectively means that it takes very large losses on its continuing gilt sales - which also help depress market prices, and create something of a downward spiral.
Also the banks are now making outsize profits (something never intended) by virtue of the scheme.
The IPPR has a report out which makes some much more sensible, and quite simple suggestions to address those two things.
You can download the full report here:
https://www.ippr.org/articles/fixing-the-leak
..after a period of making significant profits on this programme, the Bank of England is now making record losses, which is historically very unusual for central banks. The Treasury is paying for these losses, making the UK an international outlier, and the sums involved are staggering: Bank of England losses will cost the taxpayer £22 billion a year in every year of this parliament.
These losses come from two sources: valuation losses from selling government bonds below purchase value; and interest rate losses.
In this report we recommend a two-pronged approach to address this issue.
First, to recoup interest rate losses for the taxpayer currently occurring at the Bank of England, the government should implement a ‘QE reserves income levy’ on commercial banks.
Second, the government should urge the Bank of England to review and better manage the fiscal implications of its policies, in particular slowing the pace of the unwinding of quantitative easing – so-called quantitative tightening – and any future quantitative easing.
Seems like a no brainer for a Chancellor desperate for cash.
With very little downside.
How is it that the tax authorities do not reject this as they could make the argument that she owns a house in her constituency, where her job is tied to, represents as an MP and the other part of her job is covered by work provided accommodation and so there is no argument that can reasonably be used to say that the Hove apartment is her main home.
And if she argued that she will be spending most of her time in Hove then surely her constituents/employers should have a say if they are happy with that.
I’m guessing loads of MPs of all stripes do this.
Do HMRC not question this? Is it a rule that needs fixing? It might be that it’s a good thing as it greases the wheels of the market and economy but seems a bit odd that you can just change which is your main home and HMRC have to accept it when it’s very questionable.
I believe your daughter is going to uni not far from Dundee. Will you be recommending carrying an axe or a knife for visits to the ‘Dee?
I disagree with that broad-brush statement. I rarely find mine uncomfortable. The annoyances are a) when insects fly into it (especially bees), or I get an itch beneath it. Otherwise it is fine.
I look forward to you calling for no helmets to be worn on building sites. Wearing (or not wearing) should be done on a situational basis according to risk, and cycling - where you have speed as a factor - is different from walking about.
I love NWOBHM, but they never had the following here that they did in the States. Simply too generic.
NEW THREAD
These pressures are indicative of the forthcoming crisis in our fiscal affairs. Borrowing is increasing far faster than the economy is growing and the trends are not favourable. Sooner or later this bubble is going to burst and the Chancellor needs to be extremely careful about anything that might prick it. Brace.
That’s it. That’s what I said. I asked a question about a weird video because I sensed it would go viral - as it has
Zero “leaping to conclusions”. Not even speculation
Others have speculated since and possibly prematurely, it’s a very strange and sad story and weirder details keep emerging
She has also been turned into a global meme
Just shows how underworked these leeches are.
She has told her local council in he constituency that it’s her main home for the purposes of council tax.