The election was lost not in the three weeks of the campaign but in the three years which preceded it…in that period the Party itself acquired a highly unfavourable public image, based on disunity, extremism, crankiness and general unfitness to govern.”
I am a kipper, I wanted a referendum and still do. I didn't want Cameron to be PM
You make my point exactly. If you didn't want Cameron to be PM, then it follows as night follows day you wanted Ed Miliband to be PM, and therefore didn't want a referendum.
I can't help you resolve this logical conundrum because there is no solution to it.
Fortunately the voters had more sense, and we do have Cameron as PM in a majority Conservative government, and therefore we will get the referendum you claim to want, despite the efforts of UKIP to sabotage it.
No one said the Kippers had to have thought out their position ex-ante.
Stopped clocks, etc.
I have no doubt that the constant Kipper pressure resulted in the referendum pledge. I think UKIP is very far from a political party but as a pressure group (with an attached repository for discontented/like-minded votes) they did extremely well in forcing Cam to offer a referendum.
Don't forget this was before GO's superman-ness and was in the era of Cam's more flip-flops than a beach in Ibiza.
Cameron's speech in 2013 was pretty cogent on why we need a renegotiation and referendum. Mass migration has come since which makes it more important that we stay out of Schengen. But the Eurozone and its inevitable ever closer union make our situation now quite different. The point is that leaving the EU and joining the EEA for instance would make no significant difference to our lives and our relationship with the EU. The EU in its ever closer format would still exist and we would still have to live with it. The problem with leaving the EU is we leave behind all our opt outs and our opt out of Schengen. In any future negotiation with the EU who is to say that some future labour govt (liblab?) Govt would not conceded Schengen citing economic necessity?
And every time you say this bollocks Flightpath I will once again point out what utter bollocks it is. I am amused that you simply keep repeating the same old lies about the EU and the EEA and think that they will go unchallenged.
Your views on the EU are incoherent, ignorant and dishonest - pretty much like yourself as far as I can tell.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
And just think of the additional opportunities to get on PB!
I'm sceptical about driverless cars not because of railways, but because I have a (perhaps dangerously) little knowledge of where the tech is at the moment, and where it needs to get. And there is a yawning gulf between the two. In fact, some say that just the necessary vision systems are an AI-complete problem to solve.
And not a single AI-complete problem has ever been solved.
Bear in mind that the machines don't actually have to be good at driving, they just have to be better than us monkeys.
Reminds me of a purported michael Schumacher quote, when someone suggested the cars were getting so simple to drive that even a monkey could do it. His supposed response? Yes, but not as fast.
Should we ban skiing (or rock climbing or diving etc) just because it is dangerous?
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
I went for a small auto car (A Honda Jazz) which is simple to drive and park as most of my driving now I am retired is urban..Combined with parking sensors, it is amazing how easy driving in traffic jams and parking in multi-storey car parks has become.. No stress at all..
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
There's going to be an interesting political bun-fight when pedestrians realize they can just walk out in front of a car and it'll automatically stop for them. Are we going to have a bunch of new jay-walking laws or just accept that humans have de-facto priority and it's going to take you a while to drive anywhere?
Driverless cars are a pretty common sight driving up and down the highways in Silicon Valley. They move relatively slowly and are clearly marked, so everyone gives them a wide berth. Talking to people there, the major problem currently seems to be working out how they will behave in adverse weather conditions - especially fog, which is not unknown in that part of California.
That's what I thought - makes me wonder what @JosiasJessop is getting at up-thread with the complete AI thing. Is there some part of the problem that they aren't able to cope with that's fundamentally different to the parts they seem to be handling OK?
Yes.
Google have mapped the routes their cars travel on in intricate detail. They know where all the signals are, all the turns, everything they will encounter that is not moving. This involves a heck of a lot of effort, orders of magnitude more than their streetview endeavour (in fact, street view is all part of this).
It's why I said below that the data used in cars might be more valuable than the driverless cars themselves.
But cities are much more dynamic than highways. The human vision system is a marvel, and we cannot replicate its ability to determine objects. Is that cyclist on the road moving or stationary? Is that pedestrian about to step out or is he standing on the pavement? Is that bin lorry reversing? Is that bus about to stop for those passengers at the bus stop? Is that a sheen of oil on the road? Why's that driver in front driving erratically?
Whenever we drive through a city we make hundreds of tiny decisions a minute without realising it. It's why driving through a city is so much more tiring than driving down a motorway.
As a side point, whenever you see a Google car you don;t know if it's under human or fullt autonomous control.
I'm sceptical about driverless cars not because of railways, but because I have a (perhaps dangerously) little knowledge of where the tech is at the moment, and where it needs to get. And there is a yawning gulf between the two. In fact, some say that just the necessary vision systems are an AI-complete problem to solve.
And not a single AI-complete problem has ever been solved.
Bear in mind that the machines don't actually have to be good at driving, they just have to be better than us monkeys.
Reminds me of a purported michael Schumacher quote, when someone suggested the cars were getting so simple to drive that even a monkey could do it. His supposed response? Yes, but not as fast.
Should we ban skiing (or rock climbing or diving etc) just because it is dangerous?
I think you may have replied to the wrong comment - I was just sharing what I think to be an amusing quote due to the monkey analogy, I don't care about driverless cars.
There were plenty of plausible outcomes that would have suited me, and as it happens this one has turned out ok thanks to the migrant crisis.
It has turned out OK because UKIP failed in its attempt to wreck the Conservative Party's chances of getting a majority.
UKIP's strategy was to maximise its vote. A third of the voters went for options either than Conservative or Labour. Voting for one of those options didn't imply that you favoured Ed Milliband as Prime Minister. One might just as well argue that anyone who voted Green, or SNP favoured David Cameron as Prime Minister
There was me thinking that UKIP's strategy was a referendum on the EU.
UKIP's mission is for the UK to leave the EU. A referendum is one means to that end but it is only a means and I can understand them being sceptical about the conditions under which it would (will) be held. It was not wholly unreasonable for them to aim to maximise votes rather than seats (and where it might be noted that the strategy ultimately brought doom for the Lib Dems).
I don't think that UKIP would have been that disappointed had a Guardianist-Islington Labour administration, propped up by the SNP and others, toxified still further the Labour brand in the many seats which Labour hold but where UKIP are now second.
True, it would have delayed a referendum by several years at least - but would it be more likely to deliver EU exit? Different question and one to which there's no clear answer.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
Driverless cars are a pretty common sight driving up and down the highways in Silicon Valley. They move relatively slowly and are clearly marked, so everyone gives them a wide berth. Talking to people there, the major problem currently seems to be working out how they will behave in adverse weather conditions - especially fog, which is not unknown in that part of California.
That's what I thought - makes me wonder what @JosiasJessop is getting at up-thread with the complete AI thing. Is there some part of the problem that they aren't able to cope with that's fundamentally different to the parts they seem to be handling OK?
I have read they can't deal with multistory car parks.
I suggest people reread Jurassic Park and take in what that book was really about. Machine 'intelligence'? Infallible science (and scientists?)? Give me a break.
I'm sure we've all experienced ICT freezing, or going haywire for no apparent reason.
It's why I've never found credible the idea in sci-fi of super-intelligent computers plotting military campaigns. You'd discover your enemy's missiles were heading in your direction, and instead of your computer activating the anti-missile system, you'd get a little wheel turning endlessly, before a message came up saying "Sorry, we could not establish a connection. Please contact your service provider if this problem persists."
I have emailed the conservative party re tax credits. My son and daughter-in-law are already down over £100 per month. Both work full-time and have not had a pay rise. They really need to take the criticisms seriously because this will grow and grow. The media are already stirring the pot, particularly the BBC. Our TV screens and radio programmes will be an endless stream of "families" affected by this.
Their tax allowance has grown by £2,495 EACH since 2012/13
That's a £1,000 a year tax cut.
And you know what? Ultimately the objective is to change their behaviour and, brutal though it might seem, that is what is required.
Which is what puzzles me over the Sun's stance - the polling says 'bring it on' - but the Sun, which is pretty astute at writing what its readers want to read has gone all Guardian and weeping violins over it......
Internal cohesion was diciest on Europe from c.1988 to c.2001.
Over that timescale (or way back to 1973, if you prefer) the Tory party has moved from being the most pro-EEC party, to pro-single market, to pro-ERM, to wait-and-see on the euro, to no euro for next parliament, to never the euro, to not let matters rest here, to renegotiate and now to half the party wanting to quit the EU outright.
The direction of travel is pretty clear to me, and I don't think the eurosceptic journey is yet complete.
Well, yes, I get that, I really do.
I'm to be convinced there isn't a strong element of Conservative opinion which supports aspects of EU membership (the single market, freedom of movement) while being sceptical or hostile to others (working time directive etc). Reading pro-Conservative papers like City AM offers a different perspective.
Along with "the Vow", the referendum will, I think, come to be seen as a strategic blunder by Cameron which may pull the Big Tent down around him. The number of people he will not convince will be directly proportional to the nature of whatever concessions he gains from the other EU members.
My personal view is our relationship with Washington would be hugely damaged if we left the EU - the current Syria debacle shows the depth of our insignificance in world affairs - and even a GOP administration would prefer us in the EU tent rather than out of it so there will be pressure put on Berlin and Paris to provide a package that Cameron will be able to sell to the British electorate.
At the moment, Cameron's dominance is such that he could sell such a proposition - by 2017, in midterm, it may be much harder with a disillusioned electorate more likely to reject the Prime Minister's advice.
IF Cameron's view is rejected by the electorate, he is politically finished. As for the Conservative Party, "making the best of a bad job" is often how politics works but for those determined to leave, would, for example, a 55-45 vote to stay end the issue for a generation ? For those determined to stay, would a 55-45 vote to leave end the issue for a generation ?
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
I'd add, the drive from Plymouth to Dartmouth, around the Coast.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
I went for a small auto car (A Honda Jazz) which is simple to drive and park as most of my driving now I am retired is urban..Combined with parking sensors, it is amazing how easy driving in traffic jams and parking in multi-storey car parks has become.. No stress at all..
I loathe parking sensors - all that shrieking. Plus I find them useless. I can get into much tighter spots than they allow so tend to ignore them. If I could only switch the damn things off. Mind you I still tend to use maps to find my way around places .........
Mr Topper The ever closer fiscal and thus political union that goes with monetary union inevitably makes our position a changed one. A renegotiation was inevitable. The nature of our financial services sector makes it inevitable. UKIP did not force anything, they very nearly gifted us Labour and ever deeper into the euro and Schengen mess. The outside mass migration is another one quite removed from that but as we are not in schengen we are somewhat insulated. Our problem lies in the future if we leave but get shunted by some future govt into Schengen.
Driverless cars are a pretty common sight driving up and down the highways in Silicon Valley. They move relatively slowly and are clearly marked, so everyone gives them a wide berth. Talking to people there, the major problem currently seems to be working out how they will behave in adverse weather conditions - especially fog, which is not unknown in that part of California.
That's what I thought - makes me wonder what @JosiasJessop is getting at up-thread with the complete AI thing. Is there some part of the problem that they aren't able to cope with that's fundamentally different to the parts they seem to be handling OK?
I have read they can't deal with multistory car parks.
I suggest people reread Jurassic Park and take in what that book was really about. Machine 'intelligence'? Infallible science (and scientists?)? Give me a break.
I'm sure we've all experienced ICT freezing, or going haywire for no apparent reason.
It's why I've never found credible the idea in sci-fi of super-intelligent computers plotting military campaigns. You'd discover your enemy's missiles were heading in your direction, and instead of your computer activating the anti-missile system, you'd get a little wheel turning endlessly, before a message came up saying "Sorry, we could not establish a connection. Please contact your service provider if this problem persists."
Driverless cars are a pretty common sight driving up and down the highways in Silicon Valley. They move relatively slowly and are clearly marked, so everyone gives them a wide berth. Talking to people there, the major problem currently seems to be working out how they will behave in adverse weather conditions - especially fog, which is not unknown in that part of California.
Cities are also a massive problem for them, because of the increased interactions with human beings: on foot or bike, animals, and other vehicles, such as parked or manoeuvring.
One of my complaints about Google's publicity about their scheme is that they're concentrating on the massive number of miles done, and not on the types of roads. They're being slightly disingenuous.
And yes, weather such as rain and snow is also kyboshing their systems at the moment. There are some funny videos about of driverless cars failing in even mildly wet conditions.
In engineering, 90% of the work often takes 10% of the effort. The remaining ten percent - getting it to work in all situations - can be the other 90%.
iIdon't think there's any doubt that they will get there though. Driverless cars will, much like the internet fundamentally change our world, interesting times.
I have big doubts, which is why I think we're more likely to get a slow change for most driving situations. Things like active city braking and lane control being slowly extended over time in most cars we buy, with some fully autonomous cars used in some limited circumstances.
I hope I'm wrong, but the problems they face are massive. The effort will be in getting the tricky use cases such as cities or rural roads out of the way.
As a part time historian I have to chuckle at the site's biggest techie and engineering buff being so sceptical at a new technology under development. Go back a couple of hundred years, Mr. Jessop, and you will find that people then were saying similar "it will never" work things about railways. In fact we don't need to go that far back, I well remember in the early 1990s the Internet being written off as a gimmick that might be useful for academics but which had no commercial application and would never catch on.
Come to that the whole history of computing is littered with the wise-men getting it totally wrong. From the Chairman of the Digital Equipment Corporation saying the total world-wide market for computers will be in single figures to Bill Gates's famous 512k of memory is more than anyone will ever need. Didn't Gates also say that no one will ever make money from the internet?
A young and thrusting engineer like yourself being one of the crusty old it will never work brigade I find hugely amusing.
Driverless cars are a pretty common sight driving up and down the highways in Silicon Valley. They move relatively slowly and are clearly marked, so everyone gives them a wide berth. Talking to people there, the major problem currently seems to be working out how they will behave in adverse weather conditions - especially fog, which is not unknown in that part of California.
That's what I thought - makes me wonder what @JosiasJessop is getting at up-thread with the complete AI thing. Is there some part of the problem that they aren't able to cope with that's fundamentally different to the parts they seem to be handling OK?
I have read they can't deal with multistory car parks.
I suggest people reread Jurassic Park and take in what that book was really about. Machine 'intelligence'? Infallible science (and scientists?)? Give me a break.
I'm sure we've all experienced ICT freezing, or going haywire for no apparent reason.
It's why I've never found credible the idea in sci-fi of super-intelligent computers plotting military campaigns. You'd discover your enemy's missiles were heading in your direction, and instead of your computer activating the anti-missile system, you'd get a little wheel turning endlessly, before a message came up saying "Sorry, we could not establish a connection. Please contact your service provider if this problem persists."
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
My favourite drive starts a few miles outside Santander when you drive from Cantabria into Castille and onto the Meseta. The roads are empty, the landscape and the skies huge; the weather in summer and winter is savage; in spring and autumn magnificent. Going from Burgos to Soria and then from Soria into Aragon is glorious.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
I went for a small auto car (A Honda Jazz) which is simple to drive and park as most of my driving now I am retired is urban..Combined with parking sensors, it is amazing how easy driving in traffic jams and parking in multi-storey car parks has become.. No stress at all..
If more tech went into good autos for smaller cars we would indeed benefit. Thanks to so called science and super tech and jobsworth regulations it now seems we are poisoning people in the name of saving the planet.
Mr Topper The ever closer fiscal and thus political union that goes with monetary union inevitably makes our position a changed one. A renegotiation was inevitable. The nature of our financial services sector makes it inevitable. UKIP did not force anything, they very nearly gifted us Labour and ever deeper into the euro and Schengen mess. The outside mass migration is another one quite removed from that but as we are not in schengen we are somewhat insulated. Our problem lies in the future if we leave but get shunted by some future govt into Schengen.
As long as we remain in the EU any Government can shunt us into Schengen. An opt out is only as good as the Government that exercises it. Trying to pretend that leaving then EU makes us any more or less likely to join Schengen is just your normal Europhile dishonesty.
There is simply no way the Conservative Party could have held together without this referendum. The bulk of the membership and voter base wants to leave. The bulk of the MPs want to stay. Given the importance of the issue, and the level of passion about it inside the party, the idea that Cameron could have just said "the Scots get a referendum on independence, the left gets a referendum on electoral reform, but my own supporters don't get a referendum on the EU" would have been a complete non-goer.
I don't really think the American relationship is all too important here. I'm sure they would have preferred us to have been in the Eurozone too, rather than an outer member, but while they have a view, they need to accept that our own domestic governance is a matter for the UK. Canada is a close ally without being part of a broader union, so it won't make any real difference.
I agree that Cameron - and his legacy - are finished if he is on the losing side in the referendum. It will overshadow all else. That's why I think he will see how the cards lie before recommending how to go. I think he went into the process expecting to recommend a stay whatever the result, but it's possible even he has been surprised at how little compromise the EU is interested in.
I have emailed the conservative party re tax credits. My son and daughter-in-law are already down over £100 per month. Both work full-time and have not had a pay rise. They really need to take the criticisms seriously because this will grow and grow. The media are already stirring the pot, particularly the BBC. Our TV screens and radio programmes will be an endless stream of "families" affected by this.
Their tax allowance has grown by £2,495 EACH since 2012/13
That's a £1,000 a year tax cut.
And you know what? Ultimately the objective is to change their behaviour and, brutal though it might seem, that is what is required.
Which is what puzzles me over the Sun's stance - the polling says 'bring it on' - but the Sun, which is pretty astute at writing what its readers want to read has gone all Guardian and weeping violins over it......
Because they've been tipped off about the fix, and so get to write a new piece "all's well with the world, the government listens to the Sun?"
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
for those determined to leave, would, for example, a 55-45 vote to stay end the issue for a generation ? For those determined to stay, would a 55-45 vote to leave end the issue for a generation ?
Osborne says the Tories are working for working people, including for people who voted Labour. He says the party has to win over these people.
"They want security and opportunity, but they didn’t quite feel able to put their trust in us.
We’ve got to understand their reservations.
So to these working people who have been completely abandoned by a party heading off to the fringes of the left let us all here today extend our hand.
Do you know what the supporters of the new Labour leadership now call anyone who believes in strong national defence, a market economy, and the country living within its means?
They call them Tories.
Well, it’s our job to make sure they’re absolutely right."
I am a kipper, I wanted a referendum and still do. I didn't want Cameron to be PM
You make my point exactly. If you didn't want Cameron to be PM, then it follows as night follows day you wanted Ed Miliband to be PM, and therefore didn't want a referendum.
I can't help you resolve this logical conundrum because there is no solution to it.
Fortunately the voters had more sense, and we do have Cameron as PM in a majority Conservative government, and therefore we will get the referendum you claim to want, despite the efforts of UKIP to sabotage it.
No one said the Kippers had to have thought out their position ex-ante.
Stopped clocks, etc.
I have no doubt that the constant Kipper pressure resulted in the referendum pledge. I think UKIP is very far from a political party but as a pressure group (with an attached repository for discontented/like-minded votes) they did extremely well in forcing Cam to offer a referendum.
Don't forget this was before GO's superman-ness and was in the era of Cam's more flip-flops than a beach in Ibiza.
Cameron's speech in 2013 was pretty cogent on why we need a renegotiation and referendum. Mass migration has come since which makes it more important that we stay out of Schengen. But the Eurozone and its inevitable ever closer union make our situation now quite different. The point is that leaving the EU and joining the EEA for instance would make no significant difference to our lives and our relationship with the EU. The EU in its ever closer format would still exist and we would still have to live with it. The problem with leaving the EU is we leave behind all our opt outs and our opt out of Schengen. In any future negotiation with the EU who is to say that some future labour govt (liblab?) Govt would not conceded Schengen citing economic necessity?
And every time you say this bollocks Flightpath I will once again point out what utter bollocks it is. I am amused that you simply keep repeating the same old lies about the EU and the EEA and think that they will go unchallenged.
Your views on the EU are incoherent, ignorant and dishonest - pretty much like yourself as far as I can tell.
And you unamusingly keep repeating your bollox. Leave the EU = new trade deal = Single market Free movement of EEA labour Compliance with EU regs Payments to EU regional funds. Good things would be No EU parliament and no free job for Farage and Hannan.
Driverless cars are a pretty common sight driving up and down the highways in Silicon Valley. They move relatively slowly and are clearly marked, so everyone gives them a wide berth. Talking to people there, the major problem currently seems to be working out how they will behave in adverse weather conditions - especially fog, which is not unknown in that part of California.
That's what I thought - makes me wonder what @JosiasJessop is getting at up-thread with the complete AI thing. Is there some part of the problem that they aren't able to cope with that's fundamentally different to the parts they seem to be handling OK?
I have read they can't deal with multistory car parks.
I suggest people reread Jurassic Park and take in what that book was really about. Machine 'intelligence'? Infallible science (and scientists?)? Give me a break.
I'm sure we've all experienced ICT freezing, or going haywire for no apparent reason.
It's why I've never found credible the idea in sci-fi of super-intelligent computers plotting military campaigns. You'd discover your enemy's missiles were heading in your direction, and instead of your computer activating the anti-missile system, you'd get a little wheel turning endlessly, before a message came up saying "Sorry, we could not establish a connection. Please contact your service provider if this problem persists."
Dystopic fiction runs into these problems fairly often - the all powerful all knowing totalitiarian government never seem to have IT problems or very human failings as exist in real organisations of any scale.
That's another danger for Cameron's legacy. If the Tory party continues its eurosceptic movement, and we stay in the EU by 51% to 49%, then the vast majority of the party will have wanted to leave. If Cameron is seen as lying about, for example, immigration limits, then it's possible he will go down as a Blair. Hated by both sides for different things.
As a part time historian I have to chuckle at the site's biggest techie and engineering buff being so sceptical at a new technology under development. Go back a couple of hundred years, Mr. Jessop, and you will find that people then were saying similar "it will never" work things about railways. In fact we don't need to go that far back, I well remember in the early 1990s the Internet being written off as a gimmick that might be useful for academics but which had no commercial application and would never catch on.
Come to that the whole history of computing is littered with the wise-men getting it totally wrong. From the Chairman of the Digital Equipment Corporation saying the total world-wide market for computers will be in single figures to Bill Gates's famous 512k of memory is more than anyone will ever need. Didn't Gates also say that no one will ever make money from the internet?
A young and thrusting engineer like yourself being one of the crusty old it will never work brigade I find hugely amusing.
Oh, indeed. It's particular funny to read the dribblings of Doctor Lardner, an educated man who was rather a fierce and incorrect critic of Brunel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Lardner
Regarding Box Tunnel: If a train’s brakes were to fail in the tunnel, it would accelerate to over 120 mph (190 km/h), at which speed the train would breakup and kill the passengers.
Brunel was able to point out that Lardner had forgotten friction and air resistance.
I have not said anywhere on this thread that driverless cars won't happen. My main points are:
1) We are nowhere near having real autonomous cars capable of dealing with all real-world situations that face drivers every day.
2) If we do, the technology on board will be expensive and the infrastructure around it (e.g. a permanent Internet connection) fragile.
3) When they do arrive, they will not be as world-changing as the arrival of the motor car was, but they will change the way we use cars and the road system in ways most people have not considered.
On another point, there are plenty of cases where people have been sceptical and have been proved right. Workable energy from nuclear fusion being permanently thirty years away being a good example.
@PCollinsTimes: For years Labour got Osborne wrong. He is no right wing ideologue. The truth is much worse. He intends to steal all that Labour discards.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
And just think of the additional opportunities to get on PB!
Do not seriously tell me you would be in a driverless car on the motorway , or anywhere, and you would be ignoring what was going on around you? Just how much faith do you have in computers? The faith of everyone in driverless cars could be gauged by the fact that they would still have manual controls. Just how quick do you think you could react to use those controls if something went wrong?
As a part time historian I have to chuckle at the site's biggest techie and engineering buff being so sceptical at a new technology under development. Go back a couple of hundred years, Mr. Jessop, and you will find that people then were saying similar "it will never" work things about railways. In fact we don't need to go that far back, I well remember in the early 1990s the Internet being written off as a gimmick that might be useful for academics but which had no commercial application and would never catch on.
Come to that the whole history of computing is littered with the wise-men getting it totally wrong. From the Chairman of the Digital Equipment Corporation saying the total world-wide market for computers will be in single figures to Bill Gates's famous 512k of memory is more than anyone will ever need. Didn't Gates also say that no one will ever make money from the internet?
A young and thrusting engineer like yourself being one of the crusty old it will never work brigade I find hugely amusing.
Oh, indeed. It's particular funny to read the dribblings of Doctor Lardner, an educated man who was rather a fierce and incorrect critic of Brunel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Lardner
Regarding Box Tunnel: If a train’s brakes were to fail in the tunnel, it would accelerate to over 120 mph (190 km/h), at which speed the train would breakup and kill the passengers.
Brunel was able to point out that Lardner had forgotten friction and air resistance.
I have not said anywhere on this thread that driverless cars won't happen. My main points are:
1) We are nowhere near having real autonomous cars capable of dealing with all real-world situations that face drivers every day.
2) If we do, the technology on board will be expensive and the infrastructure around it (e.g. a permanent Internet connection) fragile.
3) When they do arrive, they will not be as world-changing as the arrival of the motor car was, but they will change the way we use cars and the road system in ways most people have not considered.
On another point, there are plenty of cases where people have been sceptical and have been proved right. Workable energy from nuclear fusion being permanently thirty years away being a good example.
Fair points, Mr. Jessop.
Herself is now out for the afternoon so I am off to do some serious gaming. Cheers all.
@PCollinsTimes: For years Labour got Osborne wrong. He is no right wing ideologue. The truth is much worse. He intends to steal all that Labour discards.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
On a related note, I'm wondering if there's any mileage in a road trip book driving Route 67? The route selection obviously tips a hat to R66 (now defunct as an entity), but apart from the mildly amusing sequentiality, it's an interesting route in its own right.
And if so, any advice from our published authors here?
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
And just think of the additional opportunities to get on PB!
Do not seriously tell me you would be in a driverless car on the motorway , or anywhere, and you would be ignoring what was going on around you? Just how much faith do you have in computers? The faith of everyone in driverless cars could be gauged by the fact that they would still have manual controls. Just how quick do you think you could react to use those controls if something went wrong?
I have read that it takes about 30 minutes when people first get in a driverless car to go from completely paranoid to being at rest. I generally ignore what is going on around me in the back seat of a car driven by a friend, even though they are far more likely to make a mistake than a computer.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
And just think of the additional opportunities to get on PB!
Do not seriously tell me you would be in a driverless car on the motorway , or anywhere, and you would be ignoring what was going on around you? Just how much faith do you have in computers? The faith of everyone in driverless cars could be gauged by the fact that they would still have manual controls. Just how quick do you think you could react to use those controls if something went wrong?
I'll be very happy to drive driverless cars once they've managed to navigate their way round North Devon with no mishaps.
I have emailed the conservative party re tax credits. My son and daughter-in-law are already down over £100 per month. Both work full-time and have not had a pay rise. They really need to take the criticisms seriously because this will grow and grow. The media are already stirring the pot, particularly the BBC. Our TV screens and radio programmes will be an endless stream of "families" affected by this.
Their tax allowance has grown by £2,495 EACH since 2012/13
That's a £1,000 a year tax cut.
And you know what? Ultimately the objective is to change their behaviour and, brutal though it might seem, that is what is required.
Which is what puzzles me over the Sun's stance - the polling says 'bring it on' - but the Sun, which is pretty astute at writing what its readers want to read has gone all Guardian and weeping violins over it......
Because they've been tipped off about the fix, and so get to write a new piece "all's well with the world, the government listens to the Sun?"
There is simply no way the Conservative Party could have held together without this referendum. The bulk of the membership and voter base wants to leave. The bulk of the MPs want to stay. Given the importance of the issue, and the level of passion about it inside the party, the idea that Cameron could have just said "the Scots get a referendum on independence, the left gets a referendum on electoral reform, but my own supporters don't get a referendum on the EU" would have been a complete non-goer.
I agree that Cameron - and his legacy - are finished if he is on the losing side in the referendum. It will overshadow all else. That's why I think he will see how the cards lie before recommending how to go. I think he went into the process expecting to recommend a stay whatever the result, but it's possible even he has been surprised at how little compromise the EU is interested in.
Thank you for the response and I yield to your perspective as a Conservative Party member. I must admit I didn't think the pressure for a referendum had built up so strongly as to be irresistible - I thought the rise of UKIP and the potential (not actual) electoral damage that party threatened to cause (remember the Eastleigh by-election) - forced Cameron's hand as a way of preventing a further drift of votes to Farage.
I know there are plenty on here (and even within the Conservative Party) who want Cameron to recommend LEAVE but I think you underestimate the powerful interests in the REMAIN camp. The political risks and ramifications are also enormous if Cameron goes down that route.
IF he recommends REMAIN, how many Conservatives will either a) leave the party or b) campaign for LEAVE and, if so, how can they remain Party members ? Where would the dissidents go - UKIP ?
IF he recommends LEAVE, the merger between the Conservatives and UKIP could be announced within the week but there will be those in business who would reject an anti-EU Conservative Party. Would they go to the LDs (unlikely) or would they seek (and they'd have the money to do it) to create a pro-EU pro-business pro-immigration (and possibly pro-Heathrow) Party and how much support would such a party enjoy ?
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
And just think of the additional opportunities to get on PB!
Do not seriously tell me you would be in a driverless car on the motorway , or anywhere, and you would be ignoring what was going on around you? Just how much faith do you have in computers? The faith of everyone in driverless cars could be gauged by the fact that they would still have manual controls. Just how quick do you think you could react to use those controls if something went wrong?
I'll be very happy to drive driverless cars once they've managed to navigate their way round North Devon with no mishaps.
I sit in a passenger in cars and unless the car is obviously being driven recklessly I don't really pay attention to the driving.
Regular drivers can't conceive of this but I doubt they pay particular attention to how their plane is flown in the normal run of events.
Grimdark fiction is far better if it contains elements of humour, romance, and at least some characters that one can empathise with.
I couldn't get into The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, after the protagonist brutally rapes a young woman who comes to his aid. I didn't enjoy Mark Lawrence's Prince of Thorns, when, right at the start of the novel, the protagonist recalls raping a farmer's daughter, then locking her in a barn with her family, which he then set fire to. The protagonist of KJ Parker's The Hammer is a sociopath, who I'd happily have seen chucked off a cliff. But, all three novels are very well-written, and have received a good deal of critical acclaim.
By way of comparison, I think Patricia Highsmith was an outstandingly competent writer, but I can't stand her Ripley novels, because Tom Ripley is such an obnoxious character.
Writers like George Martin and Joe Abercrombie get the balance just about right, IMHO.
(snip)
I don't think I could reread Thomas Covenant again, despite having done so many times in my adolesence. He's such a miserable, repetitively depressing git on top of everything else that I feel like I shouldn't waste time caring.
Interesting discussion and I broadly agree, especially about the tedious Thomas Covenant. As I recall Prince of Thorns, the protagonist is trying to live down the atrocity, but it's hard to get past it.
Ruth Rendell was perhaps a good counter-example with her non-Wexford books: they mostly depict psychopaths and other warped characters, but with some context and sympathy that makes you acknowledge that they're sometimes doing their best in the situation they've got into. You still don't exactly like them, but you feel for them. A good example was Live Flesh, about a murderer who essentially hates his parents and is revolted by having seen them having sex, but rethinks his attitude when he has a brief pleasant affair himself; for a while he's almost normal, but when his girlfriend moves on (it was a casual hook-up for her, a dream come true for him) he plunges back into despair.
Books where the hero is just utterly wonderful are tedious too - the early Alastair Macleans had characters who blundered into success with numerous awkward moments, but in his later books they were all boring Rambo types steamrolling the opposition.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
And just think of the additional opportunities to get on PB!
Do not seriously tell me you would be in a driverless car on the motorway , or anywhere, and you would be ignoring what was going on around you? Just how much faith do you have in computers? The faith of everyone in driverless cars could be gauged by the fact that they would still have manual controls. Just how quick do you think you could react to use those controls if something went wrong?
I'll be very happy to drive driverless cars once they've managed to navigate their way round North Devon with no mishaps.
I sit in a passenger in cars and unless the car is obviously being driven recklessly I don't really pay attention to the driving.
Regular drivers can't conceive of this but I doubt they pay particular attention to how their plane is flown in the normal run of events.
Oh, I'd be very happy to be in a driverless car on the M1 or something like that where there is
A relatively straight road; GPS signals can get through; Enough room for both cars to pass; no 1 in 4 hills combined with hairpin bends.
I have emailed the conservative party re tax credits. My son and daughter-in-law are already down over £100 per month. Both work full-time and have not had a pay rise. They really need to take the criticisms seriously because this will grow and grow. The media are already stirring the pot, particularly the BBC. Our TV screens and radio programmes will be an endless stream of "families" affected by this.
Their tax allowance has grown by £2,495 EACH since 2012/13
That's a £1,000 a year tax cut.
And you know what? Ultimately the objective is to change their behaviour and, brutal though it might seem, that is what is required.
Which is what puzzles me over the Sun's stance - the polling says 'bring it on' - but the Sun, which is pretty astute at writing what its readers want to read has gone all Guardian and weeping violins over it......
Because they've been tipped off about the fix, and so get to write a new piece "all's well with the world, the government listens to the Sun?"
What is the 'fix'? Hancock was on DP earlier holding the line that basically it's just tough and has to be done and by the way look at the whole thing in the round. As I said earlier this is the Tory's poll tax in brown envelopes.
Anyone who believes for a moment that Osborne does not want the to job after that speech is deluding themselves. He is a steal at the moment and those odds will not last.
‘The thing about Corbyn is, he talks about wanting a new, kinder type of politics.
‘But what he is doing is launching a dog whistle campaign from the Left. He is turning up to rallies and inciting this violent behaviour.’
Mr Crosby made the remarks during a stroll around the Manchester conference centre. He revealed his attempt to go incognito to evade the demonstrators: ‘I wore red trousers to confuse them along with my blue blazer.’
He had been asked whether he was a Tory and ignored protesters.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
I have emailed the conservative party re tax credits. My son and daughter-in-law are already down over £100 per month. Both work full-time and have not had a pay rise. They really need to take the criticisms seriously because this will grow and grow. The media are already stirring the pot, particularly the BBC. Our TV screens and radio programmes will be an endless stream of "families" affected by this.
Their tax allowance has grown by £2,495 EACH since 2012/13
That's a £1,000 a year tax cut.
And you know what? Ultimately the objective is to change their behaviour and, brutal though it might seem, that is what is required.
Which is what puzzles me over the Sun's stance - the polling says 'bring it on' - but the Sun, which is pretty astute at writing what its readers want to read has gone all Guardian and weeping violins over it......
Because they've been tipped off about the fix, and so get to write a new piece "all's well with the world, the government listens to the Sun?"
What is the 'fix'? Hancock was on DP earlier holding the line that basically it's just tough and has to be done and by the way look at the whole thing in the round. As I said earlier this is the Tory's poll tax in brown envelopes.
Anyone who believes for a moment that Osborne does not want the to job after that speech is deluding themselves. He is a steal at the moment and those odds will not last.
Toryisation of councils allergic to it otherwise. If he allows them to put up rates as happened back in the year, well let's see if any are stupid enough to price businesses out.
I have emailed the conservative party re tax credits. My son and daughter-in-law are already down over £100 per month. Both work full-time and have not had a pay rise. They really need to take the criticisms seriously because this will grow and grow. The media are already stirring the pot, particularly the BBC. Our TV screens and radio programmes will be an endless stream of "families" affected by this.
Their tax allowance has grown by £2,495 EACH since 2012/13
That's a £1,000 a year tax cut.
And you know what? Ultimately the objective is to change their behaviour and, brutal though it might seem, that is what is required.
Which is what puzzles me over the Sun's stance - the polling says 'bring it on' - but the Sun, which is pretty astute at writing what its readers want to read has gone all Guardian and weeping violins over it......
Because they've been tipped off about the fix, and so get to write a new piece "all's well with the world, the government listens to the Sun?"
What is the 'fix'? Hancock was on DP earlier holding the line that basically it's just tough and has to be done and by the way look at the whole thing in the round. As I said earlier this is the Tory's poll tax in brown envelopes.
A phased introduction might get them off the hook.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
What do you think of my proposed "Devon test" for driverless cars :P ?
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
What do you think of my proposed "Devon test" for driverless cars :P ?
Given the mobile coverage in Devon is so shite, I can see most of the time a driverless car will either be continually stopping driving - or announcing to the "passenger" "Over to you, mate..."
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
What do you think of my proposed "Devon test" for driverless cars :P ?
Given the mobile coverage in Devon is so shite, I can see most of the time a driverless car will either be continually stopping driving - or announcing to the "passenger" "Over to you, mate..."
Thats just a matter of infrastructure though, back in the 90s you would have said the same about mobile coverage of anywhere outside the big cities.
And for those big cities with elected mayors, like London, Manchester and now Sheffield, I will go even further.
Provided they have the support of the local business community, these mayors will be able to add a premium to the rates to pay for new infrastructure and build for their cities’ future.
Yes, further savings to be made in local government, but radical reform too. So an end to the uniform business rate. Money raised locally, spent locally.
There is simply no way the Conservative Party could have held together without this referendum. The bulk of the membership and voter base wants to leave. The bulk of the MPs want to stay. Given the importance of the issue, and the level of passion about it inside the party, the idea that Cameron could have just said "the Scots get a referendum on independence, the left gets a referendum on electoral reform, but my own supporters don't get a referendum on the EU" would have been a complete non-goer.
I agree that Cameron - and his legacy - are finished if he is on the losing side in the referendum. It will overshadow all else. That's why I think he will see how the cards lie before recommending how to go. I think he went into the process expecting to recommend a stay whatever the result, but it's possible even he has been surprised at how little compromise the EU is interested in.
Thank you for the response and I yield to your perspective as a Conservative Party member. I must admit I didn't think the pressure for a referendum had built up so strongly as to be irresistible - I thought the rise of UKIP and the potential (not actual) electoral damage that party threatened to cause (remember the Eastleigh by-election) - forced Cameron's hand as a way of preventing a further drift of votes to Farage.
I know there are plenty on here (and even within the Conservative Party) who want Cameron to recommend LEAVE but I think you underestimate the powerful interests in the REMAIN camp. The political risks and ramifications are also enormous if Cameron goes down that route.
IF he recommends REMAIN, how many Conservatives will either a) leave the party or b) campaign for LEAVE and, if so, how can they remain Party members ? Where would the dissidents go - UKIP ?
IF he recommends LEAVE, the merger between the Conservatives and UKIP could be announced within the week but there will be those in business who would reject an anti-EU Conservative Party. Would they go to the LDs (unlikely) or would they seek (and they'd have the money to do it) to create a pro-EU pro-business pro-immigration (and possibly pro-Heathrow) Party and how much support would such a party enjoy ?
I seriously doubt pro-EU businesses would leave the Tories for the LDs just on the basis of that. They'd work with the Tories to protect their interests during the negotiations to leave. And success in such negotiations would be in all of Europe's interests.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
Ah, but Reading to Inverness will all be good roads: motorways, dual carriageways or main roads. The Inverness to Durness stretch via Bonar Bridge is slow along single-track roads. Your arms get tired from acknowledging all the drivers who pull in to passing places to allow you past.
The success of UKIP was a result of the tension that built up in the Conservative party over the EU, not the cause. (Although it has now mutated into reflecting immigration concerns across the spectrum.)
There are certainly powerful interests backing REMAIN, mainly big business, but they are not as strongly for REMAIN as the media often thinks. The CBI had difficulty agreeing to a strong position on this, because many of their members are either small businesses who are affected by EU regulation but don't export, or because they are big businesses who care more about non-EU exports and see Brexit as a potential for getting new trade deals. I think they are scared witless at the idea of an uncontrolled exit out of the EU and losing free trade, but I think if Cameron said to them "look, if I lead the LEAVE camp, I can make sure we control the process and keep a trade deal that protects your EU exports", then he could defuse much of the pressure.
If Cameron recommends REMAIN with a good deal, I think he will face continued unrest from the Right. If he recommends REMAIN with a bad deal, I don't think people will leave the party, but he will have to resign afterwards, and I suspect a LEAVER will win the next election. Unless the parliamentary party only puts two REMAINERS up, and then the party will be plunged into crisis.
If Cameron recommends LEAVE, I think a couple MPs might resign the whip and go independent, but they have nowhere to go so most will stay in. I can't see them joining the Lib Dems, who are a busted flush. New Labour could have recruited them, but the way the Labour Party has become so left-wing stops that.
If Cameron wants to keep the party together, LEAVE might be the best option. Cameron can push that to big business too. "Look, we might leave the EU, but we can get a good business deal, and if I don't do this, my party will split and Jeremy Corbyn could get in."
And for those big cities with elected mayors, like London, Manchester and now Sheffield, I will go even further.
Provided they have the support of the local business community, these mayors will be able to add a premium to the rates to pay for new infrastructure and build for their cities’ future.
Yes, further savings to be made in local government, but radical reform too. So an end to the uniform business rate. Money raised locally, spent locally.
A similar scheme has paid for (from memory) a quarter of Crossrail.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
I thought I was doing well at c.525 miles from Wakefield to the Orkneys (and the same back)! - though that did have to build in about 2.5hrs for the ferry crossing.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
I went from Stockholm to Brussels overnight...to catch a train
What do you think of my proposed "Devon test" for driverless cars :P ?
Given the mobile coverage in Devon is so shite, I can see most of the time a driverless car will either be continually stopping driving - or announcing to the "passenger" "Over to you, mate..."
Thats just a matter of infrastructure though, back in the 90s you would have said the same about mobile coverage of anywhere outside the big cities.
Driverless cars are a pretty common sight driving up and down the highways in Silicon Valley. They move relatively slowly and are clearly marked, so everyone gives them a wide berth. Talking to people there, the major problem currently seems to be working out how they will behave in adverse weather conditions - especially fog, which is not unknown in that part of California.
Cities are also a massive problem for them, because of the increased interactions with human beings: on foot or bike, animals, and other vehicles, such as parked or manoeuvring.
One of my complaints about Google's publicity about their scheme is that they're concentrating on the massive number of miles done, and not on the types of roads. They're being slightly disingenuous.
And yes, weather such as rain and snow is also kyboshing their systems at the moment. There are some funny videos about of driverless cars failing in even mildly wet conditions.
In engineering, 90% of the work often takes 10% of the effort. The remaining ten percent - getting it to work in all situations - can be the other 90%.
iIdon't think there's any doubt that they will get there though. Driverless cars will, much like the internet fundamentally change our world, interesting times.
I have big doubts, which is why I think we're more likely to get a slow change for most driving situations. Things like active city braking and lane control being slowly extended over time in most cars we buy, with some fully autonomous cars used in some limited circumstances.
I hope I'm wrong, but the problems they face are massive. The effort will be in getting the tricky use cases such as cities or rural roads out of the way.
As a part time historian I have to chuckle at the site's biggest techie and engineering buff being so sceptical at a new technology under development. Go back a couple of hundred years, Mr. Jessop, and you will find that people then were saying similar "it will never" work things about railways. In fact we don't need to go that far back, I well remember in the early 1990s the Internet being written off as a gimmick that might be useful for academics but which had no commercial application and would never catch on......
One of the brightest telecoms engineers that I knew in 1990 was vehemently opposed to mobile phones as dangerous and refused to use them.... I was just a "beam me up scottie" non tech believer who saw them as solving the last mile problem.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
I went from Stockholm to Brussels overnight...to catch a train
Anyone driving more than about 500* miles in a day is a menace to other road users, in my opinion. It's - frankly - selfish behaviour.
You simply can't stay alert for that length of time, which is why truckers, train drivers and airline pilots have such strict limits on their hours.
* Arbitrary number, which is probably too high. Let's not get picky over it.
I seriously doubt pro-EU businesses would leave the Tories for the LDs just on the basis of that. They'd work with the Tories to protect their interests during the negotiations to leave. And success in such negotiations would be in all of Europe's interests.
I don't think you quite appreciate what the campaign and the result will be like especially if it goes against Cameron (he asks for us to REMAIN, we vote to LEAVE). To imagine it will all be sweetness and light is naive.
Cameron himself would be finished (as he would have been if Scotland had voted YES) and the Conservatives will be thrown into a leadership challenge against the backdrop of the Referendum result.
It's not fanciful to imagine some pro-EU elements no longer wishing to remain in a Party many of whose supporters and activists would have campaigned for a position opposed to that of their leader. The very sight of Conservatives on both REMAIN and LEAVE platforms destroys the big tent and creates disunity.
Yes the negotiations would be constructed positively (as they would been if Scotland had voted YES) but make no mistake, the Conservatives would be playing with a weak hand.
Can I just say that I enjoy driving. I don't particularly enjoy being driven (the result of an accident in Kenya many many years ago). But driving in a good comfortable car with my favourite music or audio book on is a real pleasure.
Driverless cars - whatever their other advantages may be - seem a bit meh on that front.
I hate driving in built up areas where the traffic moves at a snail's pace. Not having to worry about anything in situations like that would be great. Should they happen, I suspect they'll be most successful if they work on some kind of hybrid basis.
That's not my favourite type of driving either! But not being in control would annoy me almost as much I think.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
The Finger Lakes, upstate New York; the Isle of Mull; John O'Groats to Cape Wrath; the Yorkshire Dales; south West Australia. All great driving.
I drove John O'Groats to Cape Wrath (well, Thurso to Balnakiel), earlier this year. I completely concur.
(snip)
Bah. I can beat that. I drove for eleven hours from Cambridge to Durness (right next to Balnakeil) and then got chaufeured back a few days later.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
Wuss. I once drove from Reading to Inverness - and back!! - as a DAY TRIP. 1150 miles. To see a gull.
Ah, but Reading to Inverness will all be good roads: motorways, dual carriageways or main roads. The Inverness to Durness stretch via Bonar Bridge is slow along single-track roads. Your arms get tired from acknowledging all the drivers who pull in to passing places to allow you past.
Edit: and did you see the gull?
I did! An Ivory Gull, off course from the high Arctic....
I went from Stockholm to Brussels overnight...to catch a train
Anyone driving more than about 500* miles in a day is a menace to other road users, in my opinion. It's - frankly - selfish behaviour.
You simply can't stay alert for that length of time, which is why truckers, train drivers and airline pilots have such strict limits on their hours.
* Arbitrary number, which is probably too high. Let's not get picky over it.
I wouldn't usually - this was because it was the only way back to London during the Icelandic volcano incident. Overall it took about 18 hours. The taxi driver got some sleep on the ferry and on the German border.
Jeremy Cliffe ✔ @JeremyCliffe The logic of Osborne's housing & biz rates policies: let failing places fail rather than propping them up; help residents move to boomtowns. 12:43 PM - 5 Oct 2015
Presumably we take money uniformly and distribute it back to councils via a more complex formula.
To what extent will "failing places" suffer - I assume the thinking is that flexibility will help them?
And you unamusingly keep repeating your bollox. Leave the EU = new trade deal = Single market Free movement of EEA labour Compliance with EU regs Payments to EU regional funds. Good things would be No EU parliament and no free job for Farage and Hannan.
Sigh, wrong yet again.
EEA membership only means compliance with a limited amount of EU regulations. And unlike our current membership we would not only have full participation in their inception and draughting but would have a veto over anything we considered to be against our national interest in the end. Of course you already know this as I have pointed out the clauses in the EEA treaty agreement to you before but you still lie about it.
We would not be obliged to pay into EU regional funds.
Freedom of movement is a red herring as you know I agree with it which is why I am happy with EEA membership. However if the majority were opposed to continued freedom of movement then any other trade relationship with the EU outside of the EEA would not require free movement.
It is a shame that when so many people on here know so much more about the EU and the EEA than you do, that you still choose to ignore them and write your fantasies instead.
Jeremy Cliffe ✔ @JeremyCliffe The logic of Osborne's housing & biz rates policies: let failing places fail rather than propping them up; help residents move to boomtowns. 12:43 PM - 5 Oct 2015
Presumably we take money uniformly and distribute it back to councils via a more complex formula.
To what extent will "failing places" suffer - I assume the thinking is that flexibility will help them?
At present, if rich area X attracts lots more business, a lot of the proceeds (up to 75%) get redistributed to poorer areas. In future, X will still hand over what they hand over now, but will keep 100% of any new business rates. Clearly this does give X a good incentive to be business-friendly, and perhaps indirectly to relax planning restrictions (e.g. Cambridge might be less zealous about inhibiting urban sprawl now they'll get 100% of the proceeds), which one may or may not think a good thing. Or Cambridge could elect a mayor who put up business rates, perhaps getting more revenue without pressuring the planning system, because so many companies desperately want to be there.
The downside is this: poor area Y unable to attract much new business (e.g. because it's a rural district with poor communications which the local council can't really do much about) has hitherto been kept in touch with growth by sharing in X's success. The policy will tend to widen the gap as X accelerates away. In theory, Y could tackle that by launching a big infrastructure project and raising rates to pay for it, but oddly this option is only available for places with elected mayors. Alternatively, Y could slash business rates to try to attract businesses, but that will only produce a benefit if the business rates are the main reason businesses don't operate there, which may well not be true (a reverse Laffer curve) - would the average firm move to South Shields even if business rates were lower there? So it's probably true that the policy will let failing location Y stagnate and even decline.
And you unamusingly keep repeating your bollox. Leave the EU = new trade deal = Single market Free movement of EEA labour Compliance with EU regs Payments to EU regional funds. Good things would be No EU parliament and no free job for Farage and Hannan.
Sigh, wrong yet again.
EEA membership only means compliance with a limited amount of EU regulations. And unlike our current membership we would not only have full participation in their inception and draughting but would have a veto over anything we considered to be against our national interest in the end. Of course you already know this as I have pointed out the clauses in the EEA treaty agreement to you before but you still lie about it.
We would not be obliged to pay into EU regional funds.
Freedom of movement is a red herring as you know I agree with it which is why I am happy with EEA membership. However if the majority were opposed to continued freedom of movement then any other trade relationship with the EU outside of the EEA would not require free movement.
It is a shame that when so many people on here know so much more about the EU and the EEA than you do, that you still choose to ignore them and write your fantasies instead.
I am quite open to EEA membership, but I am not fooled that it is much different to now. The EU will still be there and we will still have to deal with it.
Comments
The election was lost not in the three weeks of the campaign but in the three years which preceded it…in that period the Party itself acquired a highly unfavourable public image, based on disunity, extremism, crankiness and general unfitness to govern.”
Your views on the EU are incoherent, ignorant and dishonest - pretty much like yourself as far as I can tell.
Google have mapped the routes their cars travel on in intricate detail. They know where all the signals are, all the turns, everything they will encounter that is not moving. This involves a heck of a lot of effort, orders of magnitude more than their streetview endeavour (in fact, street view is all part of this).
It's why I said below that the data used in cars might be more valuable than the driverless cars themselves.
But cities are much more dynamic than highways. The human vision system is a marvel, and we cannot replicate its ability to determine objects. Is that cyclist on the road moving or stationary? Is that pedestrian about to step out or is he standing on the pavement? Is that bin lorry reversing? Is that bus about to stop for those passengers at the bus stop? Is that a sheen of oil on the road? Why's that driver in front driving erratically?
Whenever we drive through a city we make hundreds of tiny decisions a minute without realising it. It's why driving through a city is so much more tiring than driving down a motorway.
As a side point, whenever you see a Google car you don;t know if it's under human or fullt autonomous control.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Edrics-Temple-Adventures-Edric-Book-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/
[I do try not to over-egg the self-promotion, but it is relevant here].
Anyway, off to try and sketch a scene traumatising a young woman [I write horror occasionally too
I don't think that UKIP would have been that disappointed had a Guardianist-Islington Labour administration, propped up by the SNP and others, toxified still further the Labour brand in the many seats which Labour hold but where UKIP are now second.
True, it would have delayed a referendum by several years at least - but would it be more likely to deliver EU exit? Different question and one to which there's no clear answer.
My favourite long drives are the drive up to Cumbria and all around Cumbria, the road from Nice skirting the Mediterranean down to Tuscany, the Amalfi coast and further south and the scariest was the Furqa pass in Switzerland. I once had to drive that in fog and rain as it got dark as the St Gotthard tunnel was closed because of flooding. Quite terrifying!
I've had some fantastic drives in the US through Arizona and California, West Virginia and Kentucky and elsewhere. Brilliant stuff.
It's why I've never found credible the idea in sci-fi of super-intelligent computers plotting military campaigns. You'd discover your enemy's missiles were heading in your direction, and instead of your computer activating the anti-missile system, you'd get a little wheel turning endlessly, before a message came up saying "Sorry, we could not establish a connection. Please contact your service provider if this problem persists."
I'm to be convinced there isn't a strong element of Conservative opinion which supports aspects of EU membership (the single market, freedom of movement) while being sceptical or hostile to others (working time directive etc). Reading pro-Conservative papers like City AM offers a different perspective.
Along with "the Vow", the referendum will, I think, come to be seen as a strategic blunder by Cameron which may pull the Big Tent down around him. The number of people he will not convince will be directly proportional to the nature of whatever concessions he gains from the other EU members.
My personal view is our relationship with Washington would be hugely damaged if we left the EU - the current Syria debacle shows the depth of our insignificance in world affairs - and even a GOP administration would prefer us in the EU tent rather than out of it so there will be pressure put on Berlin and Paris to provide a package that Cameron will be able to sell to the British electorate.
At the moment, Cameron's dominance is such that he could sell such a proposition - by 2017, in midterm, it may be much harder with a disillusioned electorate more likely to reject the Prime Minister's advice.
IF Cameron's view is rejected by the electorate, he is politically finished. As for the Conservative Party, "making the best of a bad job" is often how politics works but for those determined to leave, would, for example, a 55-45 vote to stay end the issue for a generation ? For those determined to stay, would a 55-45 vote to leave end the issue for a generation ?
Driving helps to keep one's mind active.
The ever closer fiscal and thus political union that goes with monetary union inevitably makes our position a changed one. A renegotiation was inevitable. The nature of our financial services sector makes it inevitable. UKIP did not force anything, they very nearly gifted us Labour and ever deeper into the euro and Schengen mess.
The outside mass migration is another one quite removed from that but as we are not in schengen we are somewhat insulated. Our problem lies in the future if we leave but get shunted by some future govt into Schengen.
Come to that the whole history of computing is littered with the wise-men getting it totally wrong. From the Chairman of the Digital Equipment Corporation saying the total world-wide market for computers will be in single figures to Bill Gates's famous 512k of memory is more than anyone will ever need. Didn't Gates also say that no one will ever make money from the internet?
A young and thrusting engineer like yourself being one of the crusty old it will never work brigade I find hugely amusing.
"I'd better be careful not to disagree with Jeremy Corbyn about absolutely everything or else he'll invite me to join his shadow cabinet."
Bwahahahha
There is simply no way the Conservative Party could have held together without this referendum. The bulk of the membership and voter base wants to leave. The bulk of the MPs want to stay. Given the importance of the issue, and the level of passion about it inside the party, the idea that Cameron could have just said "the Scots get a referendum on independence, the left gets a referendum on electoral reform, but my own supporters don't get a referendum on the EU" would have been a complete non-goer.
I don't really think the American relationship is all too important here. I'm sure they would have preferred us to have been in the Eurozone too, rather than an outer member, but while they have a view, they need to accept that our own domestic governance is a matter for the UK. Canada is a close ally without being part of a broader union, so it won't make any real difference.
I agree that Cameron - and his legacy - are finished if he is on the losing side in the referendum. It will overshadow all else. That's why I think he will see how the cards lie before recommending how to go. I think he went into the process expecting to recommend a stay whatever the result, but it's possible even he has been surprised at how little compromise the EU is interested in.
2. Yes
George's mockney accent still being used I see... Ya gotta luv 'im
Osborne says the Tories are working for working people, including for people who voted Labour.
He says the party has to win over these people.
"They want security and opportunity, but they didn’t quite feel able to put their trust in us.
We’ve got to understand their reservations.
So to these working people who have been completely abandoned by a party heading off to the fringes of the left let us all here today extend our hand.
Do you know what the supporters of the new Labour leadership now call anyone who believes in strong national defence, a market economy, and the country living within its means?
They call them Tories.
Well, it’s our job to make sure they’re absolutely right."
Leave the EU = new trade deal = Single market Free movement of EEA labour Compliance with EU regs Payments to EU regional funds.
Good things would be No EU parliament and no free job for Farage and Hannan.
That's another danger for Cameron's legacy. If the Tory party continues its eurosceptic movement, and we stay in the EU by 51% to 49%, then the vast majority of the party will have wanted to leave. If Cameron is seen as lying about, for example, immigration limits, then it's possible he will go down as a Blair. Hated by both sides for different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Lardner https://locksands.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/doctor-dionysius-lardner/
I have not said anywhere on this thread that driverless cars won't happen. My main points are:
1) We are nowhere near having real autonomous cars capable of dealing with all real-world situations that face drivers every day.
2) If we do, the technology on board will be expensive and the infrastructure around it (e.g. a permanent Internet connection) fragile.
3) When they do arrive, they will not be as world-changing as the arrival of the motor car was, but they will change the way we use cars and the road system in ways most people have not considered.
On another point, there are plenty of cases where people have been sceptical and have been proved right. Workable energy from nuclear fusion being permanently thirty years away being a good example.
I have not said anywhere on this thread that driverless cars won't happen. My main points are:
1) We are nowhere near having real autonomous cars capable of dealing with all real-world situations that face drivers every day.
2) If we do, the technology on board will be expensive and the infrastructure around it (e.g. a permanent Internet connection) fragile.
3) When they do arrive, they will not be as world-changing as the arrival of the motor car was, but they will change the way we use cars and the road system in ways most people have not considered.
On another point, there are plenty of cases where people have been sceptical and have been proved right. Workable energy from nuclear fusion being permanently thirty years away being a good example.
Fair points, Mr. Jessop.
Herself is now out for the afternoon so I am off to do some serious gaming. Cheers all.
On a related note, I'm wondering if there's any mileage in a road trip book driving Route 67? The route selection obviously tips a hat to R66 (now defunct as an entity), but apart from the mildly amusing sequentiality, it's an interesting route in its own right.
And if so, any advice from our published authors here?
Grant to be phased out.
Uniform business rates abolished.
I know there are plenty on here (and even within the Conservative Party) who want Cameron to recommend LEAVE but I think you underestimate the powerful interests in the REMAIN camp. The political risks and ramifications are also enormous if Cameron goes down that route.
IF he recommends REMAIN, how many Conservatives will either a) leave the party or b) campaign for LEAVE and, if so, how can they remain Party members ? Where would the dissidents go - UKIP ?
IF he recommends LEAVE, the merger between the Conservatives and UKIP could be announced within the week but there will be those in business who would reject an anti-EU Conservative Party. Would they go to the LDs (unlikely) or would they seek (and they'd have the money to do it) to create a pro-EU pro-business pro-immigration (and possibly pro-Heathrow) Party and how much support would such a party enjoy ?
Regular drivers can't conceive of this but I doubt they pay particular attention to how their plane is flown in the normal run of events.
Ruth Rendell was perhaps a good counter-example with her non-Wexford books: they mostly depict psychopaths and other warped characters, but with some context and sympathy that makes you acknowledge that they're sometimes doing their best in the situation they've got into. You still don't exactly like them, but you feel for them. A good example was Live Flesh, about a murderer who essentially hates his parents and is revolted by having seen them having sex, but rethinks his attitude when he has a brief pleasant affair himself; for a while he's almost normal, but when his girlfriend moves on (it was a casual hook-up for her, a dream come true for him) he plunges back into despair.
Books where the hero is just utterly wonderful are tedious too - the early Alastair Macleans had characters who blundered into success with numerous awkward moments, but in his later books they were all boring Rambo types steamrolling the opposition.
A relatively straight road; GPS signals can get through; Enough room for both cars to pass; no 1 in 4 hills combined with hairpin bends.
But only because I fractured my elbow.
Who needs driverless cars when they've got wonderful fathers?
As an aside the drive from Rhiconich to Durness has to be one of the best in Scotland. I'd never driven it before, and hadn't realised you could see Cape Wrath lighthouse from the road across the moors.
TP reckons he was undervalued too...
Just bought a slice of GO anyway on Betfair.
Edit: and did you see the gull?
The success of UKIP was a result of the tension that built up in the Conservative party over the EU, not the cause. (Although it has now mutated into reflecting immigration concerns across the spectrum.)
There are certainly powerful interests backing REMAIN, mainly big business, but they are not as strongly for REMAIN as the media often thinks. The CBI had difficulty agreeing to a strong position on this, because many of their members are either small businesses who are affected by EU regulation but don't export, or because they are big businesses who care more about non-EU exports and see Brexit as a potential for getting new trade deals. I think they are scared witless at the idea of an uncontrolled exit out of the EU and losing free trade, but I think if Cameron said to them "look, if I lead the LEAVE camp, I can make sure we control the process and keep a trade deal that protects your EU exports", then he could defuse much of the pressure.
If Cameron recommends REMAIN with a good deal, I think he will face continued unrest from the Right. If he recommends REMAIN with a bad deal, I don't think people will leave the party, but he will have to resign afterwards, and I suspect a LEAVER will win the next election. Unless the parliamentary party only puts two REMAINERS up, and then the party will be plunged into crisis.
If Cameron recommends LEAVE, I think a couple MPs might resign the whip and go independent, but they have nowhere to go so most will stay in. I can't see them joining the Lib Dems, who are a busted flush. New Labour could have recruited them, but the way the Labour Party has become so left-wing stops that.
If Cameron wants to keep the party together, LEAVE might be the best option. Cameron can push that to big business too. "Look, we might leave the EU, but we can get a good business deal, and if I don't do this, my party will split and Jeremy Corbyn could get in."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11911943/AIr-Frances-HR-boss-his-shirt-as-he-escapes-furious-mob.html
*innocent face*
I was just a "beam me up scottie" non tech believer who saw them as solving the last mile problem.
You simply can't stay alert for that length of time, which is why truckers, train drivers and airline pilots have such strict limits on their hours.
* Arbitrary number, which is probably too high. Let's not get picky over it.
Cameron himself would be finished (as he would have been if Scotland had voted YES) and the Conservatives will be thrown into a leadership challenge against the backdrop of the Referendum result.
It's not fanciful to imagine some pro-EU elements no longer wishing to remain in a Party many of whose supporters and activists would have campaigned for a position opposed to that of their leader. The very sight of Conservatives on both REMAIN and LEAVE platforms destroys the big tent and creates disunity.
Yes the negotiations would be constructed positively (as they would been if Scotland had voted YES) but make no mistake, the Conservatives would be playing with a weak hand.
Jeremy Cliffe
✔ @JeremyCliffe
The logic of Osborne's housing & biz rates policies: let failing places fail rather than propping them up; help residents move to boomtowns.
12:43 PM - 5 Oct 2015
Presumably we take money uniformly and distribute it back to councils via a more complex formula.
To what extent will "failing places" suffer - I assume the thinking is that flexibility will help them?
EEA membership only means compliance with a limited amount of EU regulations. And unlike our current membership we would not only have full participation in their inception and draughting but would have a veto over anything we considered to be against our national interest in the end. Of course you already know this as I have pointed out the clauses in the EEA treaty agreement to you before but you still lie about it.
We would not be obliged to pay into EU regional funds.
Freedom of movement is a red herring as you know I agree with it which is why I am happy with EEA membership. However if the majority were opposed to continued freedom of movement then any other trade relationship with the EU outside of the EEA would not require free movement.
It is a shame that when so many people on here know so much more about the EU and the EEA than you do, that you still choose to ignore them and write your fantasies instead.
The downside is this: poor area Y unable to attract much new business (e.g. because it's a rural district with poor communications which the local council can't really do much about) has hitherto been kept in touch with growth by sharing in X's success. The policy will tend to widen the gap as X accelerates away. In theory, Y could tackle that by launching a big infrastructure project and raising rates to pay for it, but oddly this option is only available for places with elected mayors. Alternatively, Y could slash business rates to try to attract businesses, but that will only produce a benefit if the business rates are the main reason businesses don't operate there, which may well not be true (a reverse Laffer curve) - would the average firm move to South Shields even if business rates were lower there? So it's probably true that the policy will let failing location Y stagnate and even decline.