I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
Diesel and petrol sure, no reason for us all to switch to Uber though. People like the personal comfort of having their own vehicle and there's no reason to switch that.
American cities will continue with mass personal car owenership as that won't change
But why have a personal car with all the expense of parking, insurance, tax, charging, etc? ESP when electric Ubers and eventually self driving Ubers will be everywhere. Quiet and clean and zero hassle. And you can get in them drunk. And then just leave them and they disappear to a warehouse overnight and charge your card automatically. Like having a perfect chauffeur
It’s obvious. Cars are doomed. Only the very rich will keep cars as a status symbol to show they can afford the needless expense and hassle. Cars will become like yachts, or horses, or golden fountain pens, or much much younger wives.
Have your own vehicles because they're safer, to your settings, convenient, on demand etc
In my car I two have booster seats for my children, as is required by law for all personal vehicles. Taxis don't have them, despite their absence making the journey more dangerous for my children. When I want to take my children to school and nursery I strap them into their seats that are ready for them in my car. I get them into the car the second we're ready to go without needing to wait for a vehicle to be available.
Ubers may work for big cities or drunk individuals but you're showing your naivety if you think that one size will be preferable for everyone and families won't prefer to have their own vehicles ready and available when they want it. 🙄
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
Diesel and petrol sure, no reason for us all to switch to Uber though. People like the personal comfort of having their own vehicle and there's no reason to switch that.
American cities will continue with mass personal car owenership as that won't change.
But why have a personal car with all the expense of parking, insurance, tax, charging, etc? ESP when electric Ubers and eventually self driving Ubers will be everywhere. Quiet and clean and zero hassle. And you can get in them drunk. And then just leave them and they disappear to a warehouse overnight and charge your card automatically. Like having a perfect chauffeur
It’s obvious. Cars are doomed. Only the very rich will keep cars as a status symbol to show they can afford the needless expense and hassle. Cars will become like yachts, or horses, or golden fountain pens, or much much younger wives.
That first paragraph is not happening any time soon. It'll be like nuclear fusion power plants and a cure for all cancer - always 10 years away.
In the city driverless cars might be an option but out here in the sticks I can't see it - too many narrow lanes, stray animals, wayward tractors etc. etc.
That first paragraph is not happening any time soon. It'll be like nuclear fusion power plants and a cure for all cancer - always 10 years away.
In the city driverless cars might be an option but out here in the sticks I can't see it - too many narrow lanes, stray animals, wayward tractors etc. etc.
Indeed. Not to forget its not even needed even when it is available out here. I know how to drive thank you. Driver assistance technology can be great but that doesn't mean people won't want their own vehicle they can adapt to their requirements and have available whenever they want.
You clearly haven’t read it. and plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
But your attitudes
No thanks. I’m here to stay and fight.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their causopponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
Each to their own.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous lie. Told time and again.
Enough. The culture war has to end. We all have grievances. And yes the leave side also told big fat fibs.
Where does this get us? Nowhere. We have decided as a nation, democracy is honoured, we really do have to get behind Brexit and make it work, even if we hate it. (And in the meantime you are democratically allowed to try and reverse it in the future, if you want)
Agreed we have to get behind Brexit but the relationship with the EU will still be an issue.
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
Are you questioning St. Boris's judgement here?
No, I will still support him but having delivered Brexit Boris will now offer a further choice of hard Brexit continuing with him or soft Brexit with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
It does genuinely baffle me why Boris appears to be choosing hard Brexit rather than grabbing the centre ground with a soft Brexit.
Ok take me as an example. I live in london. I am affluent. I can afford a nice car and I have one. For the last decade near enough I have got a new one every 2/3 years
This costs me a lot. And how often do I use it? Once a week? Maybe less? The combination of good public transport and Uber just makes driving pointless. If I don’t drive I don’t have to worry about parking, drinking, accidents, anything.
For the first time in 20 years I m thinking of just abandoning car ownership. I don’t need it. And rarely use it.
This is maybe a uniquely london thing. But what is happening in london is surely happening in nyc, Paris, Moscow. Berlin, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, and from there it must spread.
Cars will die in cities. They may linger a lot longer in rural areas. Again another echo of horses.
Gee you live in London. Wouldn't have guessed that from your naivety, that's a shock.
Maybe try leaving your bubble if you think car ownership is going to vanish any time soon. London is not the whole country and the rest of us aren't some unwashed "sticks" just behind London.
Public transport in big cities versus rest of the world is never going to be the same. An no it must not "surely" spread.
On the evolution of cars, two things that I am almost 100% certain of:
1) Fully self driving vehicles (ie ones you can get into drunk and fall asleep in the back) will not be legal on UK roads within the next 20 years at least. The technology is nowhere near as complete as some of its proponents would like to believe, and the process of proving it works, figuring out how to interface with our existing infrastructure and who is liable when it breaks down, will take a very very long time.
2) The development of flying versions of the above will take far, far longer than the ground based versions, due to the inevitable complications of automated landings in built-up areas.
That first paragraph is not happening any time soon. It'll be like nuclear fusion power plants and a cure for all cancer - always 10 years away.
In the city driverless cars might be an option but out here in the sticks I can't see it - too many narrow lanes, stray animals, wayward tractors etc. etc.
Indeed. Not to forget its not even needed even when it is available out here. I know how to drive thank you. Driver assistance technology can be great but that doesn't mean people won't want their own vehicle they can adapt to their requirements and have available whenever they want.
My wonderful driver assistance slammed on the emergency brakes due to a stray stinging nettle leaning into the road last summer!
You clearly haven’t read it. and plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
But your attitudes
No thanks. I’m here to stay and fight.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their causopponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
Each to their own.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous the future, if you want)
Agreed we have to get behind Brexit but the relationship with the EU will still be an issue.
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
Are you questioning St. Boris's judgement here?
No, I will still support him but having delivered Brexit Boris will now offer a further choice of hard Brexit continuing with him or soft Brexit with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
It does genuinely baffle me why Boris appears to be choosing hard Brexit rather than grabbing the centre ground with a soft Brexit.
As he would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he backed free movement and ECJ jurisdiction while lots of Leavers would return to the Brexit Party
The reason criminals - not just those with terrorism on their mind - get released halfway through their sentence is that we do not have enough prison places to keep them in for their whole sentence. This part of the criminal justice system has, in common with many others, been woefully underfunded for years. And so - rather than spend the money - laws are passed making automatic early release the norm.
We are not honest with the public about this.
We then get into a moral panic when something like this happens and thrash around looking for people to blame. Lawyers are a favourite group though it is not the legal profession which determines how much is spent on criminal justice. Or judges - though their sentencing decisions are much more tightly controlled than the public often realises. Or the probation service - which has been pretty much ruined by that fool, Grayling. Or the intelligence services. Or pretty much anyone.
But the reality is that if you want a criminal justice system that investigates, prosecutes, sentences and incarcerates people properly and then takes effective steps to ensure they are not a threat when released, you need to fund all parts of the system properly, you need to get high quality people in to do the work at every level and you need to be honest with the public about what is involved and what is realistic. And you also need to be honest about the choices and trade-offs involved: between public protection and individual rights, between liberty and security etc.
We do none of these things. Instead our politicians posture and preen and come up with silly ignorant or uninformed sound bites. So we get a broken second-rate system which pleases no-one and does not achieve what it ought while we preen ourselves about being such a great country. We really need to take a good clear look at ourselves. Fat chance.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
And the roads will still be full of diesel lorries, as there isn't really a viable alternative currently in existence.
We could expand railway capacity, and put thousands of long-distance containers onto electric trains instead of smelly diesel lorries?
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
And the roads will still be full of diesel lorries, as there isn't really a viable alternative currently in existence.
It's just because young people are having children later and consequently living in cities longer. Coupled with the failure of the motor insurance market to provide cover at a halfway sensible price. Once you have kids, as you've already pointed out, Uber and the like become almost unworkable, even if you stay in town and don't move out to somewhere more rural.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
No minister was allowed on GMB either. Piers is tweeting about it. Doesn't look good.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
No minister was allowed on GMB either. Piers is tweeting about it. Doesn't look good.
It is the consequence of this government arrogantly thinking that it should be immune from scrutiny.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
No minister was allowed on GMB either. Piers is tweeting about it. Doesn't look good.
Oh dear? Piers Morgan sent a Tweet? That changes everything . . . I hope it doesn't affect the next election . . .
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
Its massively, massively outperformed the UK since we made what was in hindsight the mistake of turning our backs on the rest of the world to concentrate on one small continent instead.
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
Judging by the rhetoric on terror suspects it won;t be long before somebody serious suggests some kind of horrible offshore prison arrangement, which I have no doubt would be heartily supported by a certain section of the population
Its not like we're short of islands surrounded by freezing torrents.
Sounds like a massive Human Rights Act row brewing.
If available sentence lengths aren't increased, the government looks bad on the rights front for sure, at least for as long as the rights front exists. The image of a person whom the authorities "have to" release because of "namby-pamby" laws, but who is so dangerous that they need to be followed around by armed police to ensure (sometimes unsuccessfully) that they don't stab and murder people, is a powerful one, but it's no sound basis for introducing internment. One of the main reasons sentence lengths are set how they are, for any crime, is supposed to be to protect the public. If available maximum lengths aren't working, amend statutes to make them longer.
It is pretty shocking that this guy was deemed such a risk he had to be permanently and expensively followed by 3 armed undercover cops. In fact it’s mad.
Lock them up until they are proven harmless, like homicidal pedos.
They have a dangerous lifelong mental condition which requires lifelong incarceration.
Ok take me as an example. I live in london. I am affluent. I can afford a nice car and I have one. For the last decade near enough I have got a new one every 2/3 years
This costs me a lot. And how often do I use it? Once a week? Maybe less? The combination of good public transport and Uber just makes driving pointless. If I don’t drive I don’t have to worry about parking, drinking, accidents, anything.
For the first time in 20 years I m thinking of just abandoning car ownership. I don’t need it. And rarely use it.
This is maybe a uniquely london thing. But what is happening in london is surely happening in nyc, Paris, Moscow. Berlin, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, and from there it must spread.
Cars will die in cities. They may linger a lot longer in rural areas. Again another echo of horses.
Gee you live in London. Wouldn't have guessed that from your naivety, that's a shock.
Maybe try leaving your bubble if you think car ownership is going to vanish any time soon. London is not the whole country and the rest of us aren't some unwashed "sticks" just behind London.
Public transport in big cities versus rest of the world is never going to be the same. An no it must not "surely" spread.
Calm down. No one is coming to take your car away tomorrow. I’m just futurologising, which is one of the joys of Pb
And I am right, at least as regards prosperous arty types in london.
For as long as people live in homes in dispersed hamlets, villages and towns then private personal transport will be needed. This need not be carbon fuelled (and indeed could become wholly electric) but it will continue.
There are all sorts of personal and social reasons for this. An individual might choose to walk up to a mile, or cycle up to five miles, but will not do so if any combination of the following presents an issue for them: (a) time is pressured (b) they have to carry any meaningful freight load (c) they have family with them who must travel together (d) the weather is appalling (e) train and buses aren’t an option, for reliability, price, scheduling or distance reasons or (f) it’s otherwise felt unsafe.
That’s before we get into the social reasons that people like to have their own private transport that they customise, own and are comfortable with, and in which they can keep their baggage and other personal belongings.
So I can comfortably forecast private transport is going nowhere. But it maybe become fully electrified or automated.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
What's striking to me is how many of the Liverpool stars Man Utd must have passed on signing.
Back in 2015, they could easily have got Firmino instead of Martial. In 2016, they could have had Mane instead of Pogba or Mkhitaryan, and in 2017 they could have signed Salah instead of Lukaku.
Yet consistently they have picked the wrong players out of those available.
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
I guess the clue is in your post - "people like us" - though this needs interpreting economically rather than racially.
What's striking to me is how many of the Liverpool stars Man Utd must have passed on signing.
Back in 2015, they could easily have got Firmino instead of Martial. In 2016, they could have had Mane instead of Pogba or Mkhitaryan, and in 2017 they could have signed Salah instead of Lukaku.
Yet consistently they have picked the wrong players out of those available.
They could have got Klopp until they spoke to him!
I wonder sometimes how much it is the wrong signing and how much it is the wrong management. If Klopp and his team were training Martial, Pogba and Lukaku then would they be performing as poorly as they are? Or would Klopp be getting the best out of them?
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I may be in a minority but I think the BBC has tried as hard as it is able to be relatively balanced on Brexit. There are some exceptions to that, its Europe editors demonstrate a bit of a tendency to go native, and newsnight has drifted over the line regularly, but by and large it’s at least tried.
That’s not my real beef. It’s on the broader culture wars where it still obviously skewed, as any daily skim of the BBC news will attest to which has plenty on gender, sex, race, transgender and diversity politics all playing the same tune.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their causopponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
Each to their own.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous lie. Told time and again.
Enough. The culture war has to end. We all have grievances. And yes the leave side also told big fat fibs.
Where does this get us? Nowhere. We have decided as a nation, democracy is honoured, we really do have to get behind Brexit and make it work, even if we hate it. (And in the meantime you are democratically allowed to try and reverse it in the future, if you want)
Agreed we have to get behind Brexit but the relationship with the EU will still be an issue.
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
Are you questioning St. Boris's judgement here?
No, I will still support him but having delivered Brexit Boris will now offer a further choice of hard Brexit continuing with him or soft Brexit with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
It does genuinely baffle me why Boris appears to be choosing hard Brexit rather than grabbing the centre ground with a soft Brexit.
He's not. He's indulging in posturing as is the EU. Sanity will ultimately prevail on both sides.
Ok take me as an example. I live in london. I am affluent. I can afford a nice car and I have one. For the last decade near enough I have got a new one every 2/3 years
This costs me a lot. And how often do I use it? Once a week? Maybe less? The combination of good public transport and Uber just makes driving pointless. If I don’t drive I don’t have to worry about parking, drinking, accidents, anything.
For the first time in 20 years I m thinking of just abandoning car ownership. I don’t need it. And rarely use it.
This is maybe a uniquely london thing. But what is happening in london is surely happening in nyc, Paris, Moscow. Berlin, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, and from there it must spread.
Cars will die in cities. They may linger a lot longer in rural areas. Again another echo of horses.
Agree. And ditto for me in central London. I run an old Merc. I've owned it from new (1994) and have grown to love it, like you do with things you've had for ages (other than medical conditions). So I could not scrap it, I just couldn't, but I will not be replacing it if and when it gives up the ghost. Main thing I need it for is visits to folks (but could do train) and golf. The latter is the big one. You cannot play golf if you do not have a car. Lugging clubs on Uber or public transport is cumbersome. And you do need to arrive at your golf club in a car, and preferably a marque brand. Rocking up any other way is not acceptable in that environment. So, when my car goes, that's no more golf for me. I'll live with that.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
If that's the choice, I'll settle for current levels of national security and keeping the BBC, thanks.
Here we are. The EU begins pushing for a position that is completely unreasonable. Next step will be Remainers being strategically inept, again, and backing them up.
The truth is that every major FTA the EU has is not governed by the ECJ. The Japan agreement is not. The Korea agreement is not. The Canada agreement is not. The proposed US agreement is not. It is obviously something the UK can not accept.
But what will happen is Remainers will, for domestic political reasons, say "well the UK is so much weaker it has to accept". The lack of a unified UK position will mean the EU feels it doesn't need to back down. And the UK will end up having to reject it anyway, leading to a harder Brexit.
Ok take me as an example. I live in london. I am affluent. I can afford a nice car and I have one. For the last decade near enough I have got a new one every 2/3 years
This costs me a lot. And how often do I use it? Once a week? Maybe less? The combination of good public transport and Uber just makes driving pointless. If I don’t drive I don’t have to worry about parking, drinking, accidents, anything.
For the first time in 20 years I m thinking of just abandoning car ownership. I don’t need it. And rarely use it.
This is maybe a uniquely london thing. But what is happening in london is surely happening in nyc, Paris, Moscow. Berlin, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, and from there it must spread.
Cars will die in cities. They may linger a lot longer in rural areas. Again another echo of horses.
Gee you live in London. Wouldn't have guessed that from your naivety, that's a shock.
Maybe try leaving your bubble if you think car ownership is going to vanish any time soon. London is not the whole country and the rest of us aren't some unwashed "sticks" just behind London.
Public transport in big cities versus rest of the world is never going to be the same. An no it must not "surely" spread.
Calm down. No one is coming to take your car away tomorrow. I’m just futurologising, which is one of the joys of Pb
And I am right, at least as regards prosperous arty types in london.
For as long as people live in homes in dispersed hamlets, villages and towns then private personal transport will be needed. This need not be carbon fuelled (and indeed could become wholly electric) but it will continue.
There are all sorts of personal and social reasons for this. An individual might choose to walk up to a mile, or cycle up to five miles, but will not do so if any combination of the following presents an issue for them: (a) time is pressured (b) they have to carry any meaningful freight load (c) they have family with them who must travel together (d) the weather is appalling (e) train and buses aren’t an option, for reliability, price, scheduling or distance reasons or (f) it’s otherwise felt unsafe.
That’s before we get into the social reasons that people like to have their own private transport that they customise, own and are comfortable with, and in which they can keep their baggage and other personal belongings.
So I can comfortably forecast private transport is going nowhere. But it maybe become fully electrified or automated.
"For as long as people live in homes in dispersed hamlets.." - about 30 years then, or have you not noticed the way the gaps are filling in?
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
Its massively, massively outperformed the UK since we made what was in hindsight the mistake of turning our backs on the rest of the world to concentrate on one small continent instead.
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I may be in a minority but I think the BBC has tried as hard as it is able to be relatively balanced on Brexit. There are some exceptions to that, its Europe editors demonstrate a bit of a tendency to go native, and newsnight has drifted over the line regularly, but by and large it’s at least tried.
That’s not my real beef. It’s on the broader culture wars where it still obviously skewed, as any daily skim of the BBC news will attest to which has plenty on gender, sex, race, transgender and diversity politics all playing the same tune.
Yes, I think my beef is similar to yours, particularly the things you mention in your last paragraph.
I agree that they tried on Brexit, but generally failed to capture the more reasoned reasons for exit. They also joined in with the demonisation of Boris Johnson I think.
Those on the far left left accuse BBC of right-wing bias whilst those on the far right accuse it of left-wing bias, but when someone like me who is a fan and is in the centre of the left-right spectrum and who voted Remain notice bias then it is probably true.
It will need no gilding because it doesn't exist. I want to see Trump gone but there's about as much chance of Sanders becoming President as Jo Swinson had a chance of becoming PM and cancelling Brexit.
You are way off what the market thinks. Bernie is 5/1 for POTUS - a 17% chance,
We should consider one of those notorious "private bets" that happen on here sometimes.
I would only ask you for odds of 9/2 and I would do my £40 against your £180.
There’s a difference between opposing your own country’s values and attitudes when it is wrong and actively supporting a rival power because you are emotionally attached to that rival.
Eg I like to think I’d have been a conscientious objector in world war 1. A hideous and pointless war which ruined half a century and destroyed half of civilisation. I’d have gone to jail - I hope - denouncing my country’s warmongering stupidity.
That’s not treason in my mind. Treason would be saying But the Kaiser is right, Let him take some of our colonies. Remainers in their ultra moods come close to this later position.
I understand the point, and in wartime I agree it has some merit, and normal rules of free expression need to be curtailed.
We are not, however, at war, and we must reserve the right to disagree with our government if we think they're wrong (whether or not that means we think some other government is right, and whatever emotional or rational reasons we may have for our opinions). That is actually more important than the nature of the trade deal, the colour of the government, or our past, present or future relationship with the EU.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
Maybe Bargain Hunt should not be paid for but news that attempts to be impartial certainly should. The BBC sets a standard that other media outlets fear straying too far from. I don't want our news landscape to end up like America's.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article from which this is cribbed. The FT is hugely europhile. It’s Remainer central. Yet they print this
It's an interesting story. It has the hallmarks of a PR briefing and not careless gossip about what's actually going on in the company. Someone in Nissan is pushing an agenda. The options under discussion presumably include shutting down the Sunderland operation entirely. You might expect the article to list the alternatives under discussion, but it doesn't.
So what is the agenda, who's pushing it and to whom? Couple of theories, but there are others.
Theory 1: Corporate Nissan wants the UK government to make their company a national champion by giving it all sorts of discriminatory benefits, which is the only way it will quintuple market share to make a UK only factory viable.
Theory 2: Nissan UK is fighting a rearguard action against Nissan HQ to keep the flag flying in Sunderland
A fabulous speech by the PM with a timely message. With the vacuum of leadership offered elsewhere, he looks to me like he is going to drive the ideological shape of the Western consensus more so than anyone else.
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
Its massively, massively outperformed the UK since we made what was in hindsight the mistake of turning our backs on the rest of the world to concentrate on one small continent instead.
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
To have a resource based economy ?
That's a myth. Natural resources are a minor part of Australia's economy just as it is a minor part of ours too. Just like us, the vast majority of their economy is Services based.
The top 10 industries for employment in Australia - which one would sound odd in the UK?
1 Health care and social assistance 1758.5 13.5% 2 Retail trade 1265.9 9.7% 3 Construction 1190.5 9.2% 4 Professional, scientific and technical services 1161.6 8.9% 5 Education and training 1081.2 8.3% 6 Accommodation and food services 926.8 7.1% 7 Manufacturing 912.5 7.0% 8 Public administration and safety 832.5 6.4% 9 Transport, postal and warehousing 655.2 5.0% 10 Financial and insurance services 458.9 3.5%
The entire mining industry, while important, accounts for below 2% of Australia's employment and doesn't account for the major gap in performance over the last few decades.
Here we are. The EU begins pushing for a position that is completely unreasonable. Next step will be Remainers being strategically inept, again, and backing them up.
The truth is that every major FTA the EU has is not governed by the ECJ. The Japan agreement is not. The Korea agreement is not. The Canada agreement is not. The proposed US agreement is not. It is obviously something the UK can not accept.
But what will happen is Remainers will, for domestic political reasons, say "well the UK is so much weaker it has to accept". The lack of a unified UK position will mean the EU feels it doesn't need to back down. And the UK will end up having to reject it anyway, leading to a harder Brexit.
Haven't I already seen this movie? it sounds incredibly familiar.
Ok take me as an example. I live in london. I am affluent. I can afford a nice car and I have one. For the last decade near enough I have got a new one every 2/3 years
This costs me a lot. And how often do I use it? Once a week? Maybe less? The combination of good public transport and Uber just makes driving pointless. If I don’t drive I don’t have to worry about parking, drinking, accidents, anything.
This is maybe a uniquely london thing. But what is happening in london is surely happening in nyc, Paris, Moscow. Berlin, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, and from there it must spread.
Cars will die in cities. They may linger a lot longer in rural areas. Again another echo of horses.
Gee you live in London. Wouldn't have guessed that from your naivety, that's a shock.
Maybe try leaving your bubble if you think car ownership is going to vanish any time soon. London is not the whole country and the rest of us aren't some unwashed "sticks" just behind London.
Public transport in big cities versus rest of the world is never going to be the same. An no it must not "surely" spread.
Calm down. No one is coming to take your car away tomorrow. I’m just futurologising, which is one of the joys of Pb
And I am right, at least as regards prosperous arty types in london.
That’s before we get into the social reasons that people like to have their own private transport that they customise, own and are comfortable with, and in which they can keep their baggage and other personal belongings.
So I can comfortably forecast private transport is going nowhere. But it maybe become fully electrified or automated.
"For as long as people live in homes in dispersed hamlets.." - about 30 years then, or have you not noticed the way the gaps are filling in?
Car transport will become increasinglybased on cars hired for the jourmey rather than owned outright. It makes little economic sense to own a fast depreciating assett which soends most of its time sitting on a drive or in a car park. At present car clubs are only local for people living relatively centrally in big cities, but they will spread, particularly once autonomous vehhicles mean a car can come to your door rather than you having to walk to yoir nearest car club car. They may never becime universal, but I think car ownership will be a minority option within 15 years. A stepping stone will be two-car families where both are in use once a week or less becoming o e car families who car club. The biggest diwnside that I can see is that I will have to stop usong my car as a sort of spare attic for stuff.
It will need no gilding because it doesn't exist. I want to see Trump gone but there's about as much chance of Sanders becoming President as Jo Swinson had a chance of becoming PM and cancelling Brexit.
You are way off what the market thinks. Bernie is 5/1 for POTUS - a 17% chance,
We should consider one of those notorious "private bets" that happen on here sometimes.
I would only ask you for odds of 9/2 and I would do my £40 against your £180.
No thanks. I don't bet big and I don't bet below evens.
What's striking to me is how many of the Liverpool stars Man Utd must have passed on signing.
Back in 2015, they could easily have got Firmino instead of Martial. In 2016, they could have had Mane instead of Pogba or Mkhitaryan, and in 2017 they could have signed Salah instead of Lukaku.
Yet consistently they have picked the wrong players out of those available.
They could have got Klopp until they spoke to him!
I wonder sometimes how much it is the wrong signing and how much it is the wrong management. If Klopp and his team were training Martial, Pogba and Lukaku then would they be performing as poorly as they are? Or would Klopp be getting the best out of them?
No doubt Klopp is an excellent manager. But in that time, Man Utd have gone through Van Gaal and Mourinho, who have both won lots of trophies at other clubs. Ultimately I think the people making the decisions at the top keep getting it wrong.
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
Its massively, massively outperformed the UK since we made what was in hindsight the mistake of turning our backs on the rest of the world to concentrate on one small continent instead.
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
To have a resource based economy ?
That's a myth. Natural resources are a minor part of Australia's economy just as it is a minor part of ours too.
You are quoting employment figures, not contribution to national GDP.
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
The "Australia arrangement" used to be known as "Managed No Deal" before that become totally discredited. The idea is to suggest it's all part of a plan.
"Fuck-up with nothing to show for it" is more accurate but lacks that positive spin.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
Maybe Bargain Hunt should not be paid for but news that attempts to be impartial certainly should. The BBC sets a standard that other media outlets fear straying too far from. I don't want our news landscape to end up like America's.
So why can't commercials fund Eastenders and Bargain Hunt and Radio while news is funded separately then? The BBC is not a news organisation.
Here we are. The EU begins pushing for a position that is completely unreasonable. Next step will be Remainers being strategically inept, again, and backing them up.
The truth is that every major FTA the EU has is not governed by the ECJ. The Japan agreement is not. The Korea agreement is not. The Canada agreement is not. The proposed US agreement is not. It is obviously something the UK can not accept.
But what will happen is Remainers will, for domestic political reasons, say "well the UK is so much weaker it has to accept". The lack of a unified UK position will mean the EU feels it doesn't need to back down. And the UK will end up having to reject it anyway, leading to a harder Brexit.
Except Boris now has a majority of 80, all Brexiteers, not a hung parliament like most of last year
5 years of lies like this. Australia does not have a trade agreement with the EU. It is starting talks with the EU. Australia-style means WTO.
Man with history of lying gives speech which includes lies. If only this had been predicted...
He said no British PM could or should put a border down the Irish Sea.
Can you tell me what happened next?
Boris has assured us that there will be no border.
Stena Ports would like to know which part of the non-existent checks the govt is prepared to pay for
"At Stena-owned Holyhead, the UK's second largest port, the facilities for checking animal products have long since been sold off and replaced with a supermarket and a McDonald's.
Some local politicians have floated the idea of having to reclaim land from the Irish Sea in order to create the space for the post-Brexit checks required there on the key route with Dublin."
A fabulous speech by the PM with a timely message. With the vacuum of leadership offered elsewhere, he looks to me like he is going to drive the ideological shape of the Western consensus more so than anyone else.
Note one little detail: California may be holding their primary on Super Tuesday, but as in previous elections it will take them ages to actually add up the definitive results, and those may be quite different to the preliminary announcement.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
Its massively, massively outperformed the UK since we made what was in hindsight the mistake of turning our backs on the rest of the world to concentrate on one small continent instead.
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
Lessons always welcome from wherever. But I'm talking about the curious predilection for badging things as "Australian style" when they are not particularly or specifically Australian style at all. Like with the immigration policy. The Australian reference is gratuitous. It is there because it plays well in focus groups (as Farage knew). And why does it play so well, do we think? And as for the FTA, it's meaningless, Oz in essence has WTO. So why not announce that our plan B if we cannot get a Canada is a "Burkina Faso style" (non) FTA with the EU? That's very loose. No ECJ jurisdiction there whatsoever.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
Maybe Bargain Hunt should not be paid for but news that attempts to be impartial certainly should. The BBC sets a standard that other media outlets fear straying too far from. I don't want our news landscape to end up like America's.
The BBC news is the problem, its simply an ecow chamber, of left wing anti-Tory progressive, opinion. and yes the much of the rest of the media, including the government owned Chanel 4.
As such I for one will never pay for a 'licence' as a result I am legally banned form watching any live TV which frankly is an affront to my freedom.
What's striking to me is how many of the Liverpool stars Man Utd must have passed on signing.
Back in 2015, they could easily have got Firmino instead of Martial. In 2016, they could have had Mane instead of Pogba or Mkhitaryan, and in 2017 they could have signed Salah instead of Lukaku.
Yet consistently they have picked the wrong players out of those available.
They could have got Klopp until they spoke to him!
I wonder sometimes how much it is the wrong signing and how much it is the wrong management. If Klopp and his team were training Martial, Pogba and Lukaku then would they be performing as poorly as they are? Or would Klopp be getting the best out of them?
No doubt Klopp is an excellent manager. But in that time, Man Utd have gone through Van Gaal and Mourinho, who have both won lots of trophies at other clubs. Ultimately I think the people making the decisions at the top keep getting it wrong.
Mourinho is not what he used to be. But yes the rot starts with Woodward and others, Klopp is definitely better backed by FSG than United's turnstile of managers are getting backed by the Glazers.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their causopponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
Each to their own.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous lie. Told time and again.
Enough. The culture war has to end. We all have grievances. And yes the leave side also told big fat fibs.
Where does this get us? Nowhere. We have decided as a nation, democracy is honoured, we really do have to get behind Brexit and make it work, even if we hate it. (And in the meantime you are democratically allowed to try and reverse it in the future, if you want)
Agreed we have to get behind Brexit but the relationship with the EU will still be an issue.
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
Are you questioning St. Boris's judgement here?
No, I will still support him but having delivered Brexit Boris will now offer a further choice of hard Brexit continuing with him or soft Brexit with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
It does genuinely baffle me why Boris appears to be choosing hard Brexit rather than grabbing the centre ground with a soft Brexit.
He's not. He's indulging in posturing as is the EU. Sanity will ultimately prevail on both sides.
It will need no gilding because it doesn't exist. I want to see Trump gone but there's about as much chance of Sanders becoming President as Jo Swinson had a chance of becoming PM and cancelling Brexit.
You are way off what the market thinks. Bernie is 5/1 for POTUS - a 17% chance,
We should consider one of those notorious "private bets" that happen on here sometimes.
I would only ask you for odds of 9/2 and I would do my £40 against your £180.
No thanks. I don't bet big and I don't bet below evens.
I don`t do private bets either. But if Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump I`d not only run round the garden naked, I`d eat my hat whilst doing so.
Its massively, massively outperformed the UK since we made what was in hindsight the mistake of turning our backs on the rest of the world to concentrate on one small continent instead.
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
Lessons always welcome from wherever. But I'm talking about the curious predilection for badging things as "Australian style" when they are not particularly or specifically Australian style at all. Like with the immigration policy. The Australian reference is gratuitous. It is there because it plays well in focus groups (as Farage knew). And why does it play so well, do we think? And as for the FTA, it's meaningless, Oz in essence has WTO. So why not annouce that our plan B if we cannot get a Canada is a "Burkina Faso style" (non) FTA with the EU? That's very loose. No ECJ jurisdiction there whatsoever.
Australia is a comparable country that we can relate to.
Aus isn't WTO, it has sector by sector agreements rather than a comprehensive agreement.
So its saying if we can't get a comprehensive deal then we will get a sector by sector deal instead.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
If its valuable for you then you should pay for it, or fund raise for it.
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm n
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
I agree; as a fellow cultural elitist there's nothing I like better to do than settle down in front of the box of a Saturday evening to see just when Craig Revel-Horwood eventually awards his first "10".
"Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that".
"I agree; as a fellow cultural elitist there's nothing I like better to do than settle down in front of the box of a Saturday evening to see just when Craig Revel-Horwood eventually awards his first "10"."
Well, I should admit that I had no idea who Craig Revel-Horwood is until I Googled him the other day after the name came up in a podcast I listen to.
Sounds like a massive Human Rights Act row brewing.
Yes that will be the next thing on the hit list . They’ll manufacture a row and then pull out of the ECHR . And will be cheered on by some of the public as everyone’s rights are flushed down the toilet .
Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
Incidentally I see no evidence the BBC is particularly special or great at providing a steady stream of niche low popularity broadcasting. Quite the opposite. My issue with the BBC is not only that I am compelled by law to pay for it but that it is dominated by populist meaningless crap.
If you want a specialist channel dedicated to history programming, or geography, or in a foreign language or sci fi, or whatever else you can find a channel or show with that on Sky or online. With hundreds of channels there are some very obscure and niche channels on Sky - and on Netflix and other online non-linear broadcasters too.
Far more than there are watching what could be any random episode of people dancing or fighting on Albert Square, or digging through antiques or whatever populist shit the BBC has on today.
Comments
In my car I two have booster seats for my children, as is required by law for all personal vehicles. Taxis don't have them, despite their absence making the journey more dangerous for my children. When I want to take my children to school and nursery I strap them into their seats that are ready for them in my car. I get them into the car the second we're ready to go without needing to wait for a vehicle to be available.
Ubers may work for big cities or drunk individuals but you're showing your naivety if you think that one size will be preferable for everyone and families won't prefer to have their own vehicles ready and available when they want it. 🙄
In the city driverless cars might be an option but out here in the sticks I can't see it - too many narrow lanes, stray animals, wayward tractors etc. etc.
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-prison-sentence/indeterminate-prison-sentences-no-fixed-length-of-time
Maybe try leaving your bubble if you think car ownership is going to vanish any time soon. London is not the whole country and the rest of us aren't some unwashed "sticks" just behind London.
Public transport in big cities versus rest of the world is never going to be the same. An no it must not "surely" spread.
https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1224259241093017600
1) Fully self driving vehicles (ie ones you can get into drunk and fall asleep in the back) will not be legal on UK roads within the next 20 years at least. The technology is nowhere near as complete as some of its proponents would like to believe, and the process of proving it works, figuring out how to interface with our existing infrastructure and who is liable when it breaks down, will take a very very long time.
2) The development of flying versions of the above will take far, far longer than the ground based versions, due to the inevitable complications of automated landings in built-up areas.
We are not honest with the public about this.
We then get into a moral panic when something like this happens and thrash around looking for people to blame. Lawyers are a favourite group though it is not the legal profession which determines how much is spent on criminal justice. Or judges - though their sentencing decisions are much more tightly controlled than the public often realises. Or the probation service - which has been pretty much ruined by that fool, Grayling. Or the intelligence services. Or pretty much anyone.
But the reality is that if you want a criminal justice system that investigates, prosecutes, sentences and incarcerates people properly and then takes effective steps to ensure they are not a threat when released, you need to fund all parts of the system properly, you need to get high quality people in to do the work at every level and you need to be honest with the public about what is involved and what is realistic. And you also need to be honest about the choices and trade-offs involved: between public protection and individual rights, between liberty and security etc.
We do none of these things. Instead our politicians posture and preen and come up with silly ignorant or uninformed sound bites. So we get a broken second-rate system which pleases no-one and does not achieve what it ought while we preen ourselves about being such a great country. We really need to take a good clear look at ourselves. Fat chance.
https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1224309764773031938?s=20
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ga6nsiyDA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christmas_films#Christmas_Action_Films
However if the EU will not agree a Canada style FTA on the same terms with us an Australia style arrangement it will have to be
I hope I’m wrong because to exit the transition on a No Deal basis strikes me as unbelievably stupid - but that is what the Tories are planning.
I think Manchester United would have been better off burning the money.
https://twitter.com/footyaccums/status/1224261238299025409?s=21
No Deal means poor Leavers suffer the most and it ruins the credibility of Leavers forever.
The short term pain of No Deal will be worth it for our swift return to sunlit uplands of the EU.
Christmas provides a backdrop to the context of the plot, such as it is, but it isn’t the central feature of the film.
https://twitter.com/johnjohnstonmi/status/1224319353539256320?s=21
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
What happened to the easiest trade deal in history?
If WTO+ is considered a success it shows how low the Brexiteer expectations have sunk.
If only this had been predicted...
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
Its not like we're short of islands surrounded by freezing torrents.
There are all sorts of personal and social reasons for this. An individual might choose to walk up to a mile, or cycle up to five miles, but will not do so if any combination of the following presents an issue for them: (a) time is pressured (b) they have to carry any meaningful freight load (c) they have family with them who must travel together (d) the weather is appalling (e) train and buses aren’t an option, for reliability, price, scheduling or distance reasons or (f) it’s otherwise felt unsafe.
That’s before we get into the social reasons that people like to have their own private transport that they customise, own and are comfortable with, and in which they can keep their baggage and other personal belongings.
So I can comfortably forecast private transport is going nowhere. But it maybe become fully electrified or automated.
Can you tell me what happened next?
Back in 2015, they could easily have got Firmino instead of Martial. In 2016, they could have had Mane instead of Pogba or Mkhitaryan, and in 2017 they could have signed Salah instead of Lukaku.
Yet consistently they have picked the wrong players out of those available.
UK GDP per capita in that same time just over doubled.
Australia is a sunlit uplands that is outperforming the UK.
I wonder sometimes how much it is the wrong signing and how much it is the wrong management. If Klopp and his team were training Martial, Pogba and Lukaku then would they be performing as poorly as they are? Or would Klopp be getting the best out of them?
That’s not my real beef. It’s on the broader culture wars where it still obviously skewed, as any daily skim of the BBC news will attest to which has plenty on gender, sex, race, transgender and diversity politics all playing the same tune.
https://www.twitter.com/joncstone/status/1224292014038167552
The truth is that every major FTA the EU has is not governed by the ECJ. The Japan agreement is not. The Korea agreement is not. The Canada agreement is not. The proposed US agreement is not. It is obviously something the UK can not accept.
But what will happen is Remainers will, for domestic political reasons, say "well the UK is so much weaker it has to accept". The lack of a unified UK position will mean the EU feels it doesn't need to back down. And the UK will end up having to reject it anyway, leading to a harder Brexit.
"For as long as people live in homes in dispersed hamlets.." - about 30 years then, or have you not noticed the way the gaps are filling in?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
I agree that they tried on Brexit, but generally failed to capture the more reasoned reasons for exit. They also joined in with the demonisation of Boris Johnson I think.
Those on the far left left accuse BBC of right-wing bias whilst those on the far right accuse it of left-wing bias, but when someone like me who is a fan and is in the centre of the left-right spectrum and who voted Remain notice bias then it is probably true.
We should consider one of those notorious "private bets" that happen on here sometimes.
I would only ask you for odds of 9/2 and I would do my £40 against your £180.
We are not, however, at war, and we must reserve the right to disagree with our government if we think they're wrong (whether or not that means we think some other government is right, and whatever emotional or rational reasons we may have for our opinions). That is actually more important than the nature of the trade deal, the colour of the government, or our past, present or future relationship with the EU.
So what is the agenda, who's pushing it and to whom? Couple of theories, but there are others.
Theory 1: Corporate Nissan wants the UK government to make their company a national champion by giving it all sorts of discriminatory benefits, which is the only way it will quintuple market share to make a UK only factory viable.
Theory 2: Nissan UK is fighting a rearguard action against Nissan HQ to keep the flag flying in Sunderland
The top 10 industries for employment in Australia - which one would sound odd in the UK?
1 Health care and social assistance 1758.5 13.5%
2 Retail trade 1265.9 9.7%
3 Construction 1190.5 9.2%
4 Professional, scientific and technical services 1161.6 8.9%
5 Education and training 1081.2 8.3%
6 Accommodation and food services 926.8 7.1%
7 Manufacturing 912.5 7.0%
8 Public administration and safety 832.5 6.4%
9 Transport, postal and warehousing 655.2 5.0%
10 Financial and insurance services 458.9 3.5%
The entire mining industry, while important, accounts for below 2% of Australia's employment and doesn't account for the major gap in performance over the last few decades.
A stepping stone will be two-car families where both are in use once a week or less becoming o e car families who car club.
The biggest diwnside that I can see is that I will have to stop usong my car as a sort of spare attic for stuff.
"Fuck-up with nothing to show for it" is more accurate but lacks that positive spin.
Stena Ports would like to know which part of the non-existent checks the govt is prepared to pay for
"At Stena-owned Holyhead, the UK's second largest port, the facilities for checking animal products have long since been sold off and replaced with a supermarket and a McDonald's.
Some local politicians have floated the idea of having to reclaim land from the Irish Sea in order to create the space for the post-Brexit checks required there on the key route with Dublin."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51351677
I mean... they only run and administer the ports, so what do they know?
http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-road-to-milwaukee-how-the-democratic-primary-will-unfold/
Note one little detail: California may be holding their primary on Super Tuesday, but as in previous elections it will take them ages to actually add up the definitive results, and those may be quite different to the preliminary announcement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hard#Release
Can't blame the Americans for being so keen for the best Christmas film ever they had to see it early.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
As such I for one will never pay for a 'licence' as a result I am legally banned form watching any live TV which frankly is an affront to my freedom.
Sadly, my confidence in sanity prevailing as taken a few dents in the past 4 years.
Aus isn't WTO, it has sector by sector agreements rather than a comprehensive agreement.
So its saying if we can't get a comprehensive deal then we will get a sector by sector deal instead.
Because, as an affluent Londoner, @eadric will be fine.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that".
"I agree; as a fellow cultural elitist there's nothing I like better to do than settle down in front of the box of a Saturday evening to see just when Craig Revel-Horwood eventually awards his first "10"."
Well, I should admit that I had no idea who Craig Revel-Horwood is until I Googled him the other day after the name came up in a podcast I listen to.
Limo driver Argyle: “This is Christmas music!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR07r0ZMFb8
https://forum.developer.betfair.com/forum/developer-program/announcements/30387-updated-betfair-com-login-disabling-tls-ciphers-3rd-february-2020
If you want a specialist channel dedicated to history programming, or geography, or in a foreign language or sci fi, or whatever else you can find a channel or show with that on Sky or online. With hundreds of channels there are some very obscure and niche channels on Sky - and on Netflix and other online non-linear broadcasters too.
Far more than there are watching what could be any random episode of people dancing or fighting on Albert Square, or digging through antiques or whatever populist shit the BBC has on today.
It's even presented by people in dinner jackets if that helps.
Plus we're about to be asked to pay (via BritBox) for programmes we have already paid for through the license fee.