On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
Building all over the greenbelt and then demanding all our farmers should be made redundant and their produce replaced by imports from New Zealand would destroy the Tory Party in the South (and indeed the farming Tory vote in the North too)
And yet that is the policy...
It isn't, even the new national planning policy provides for protected zones from development.
Any trade deal will include expanded access for UK farmers to overseas markets too and if Eustice and Gove get their way over Truss tariffs will only be eased on imports of meat gradually and on selected products only
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
Air is 0% of the UK economy. Try doing without it. The economics of agriculture show that money and the significance of something are non identical.
We import much of our food already and have done for centuries. What difference does it make if we import a bit more?
The only difference it would make to most people's lives is their lives could be better - and they'd see fewer fields from the sky in the moment between take off/landing in a plane and being above the clouds.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
The curious thing about the Tories implementing UKIP or Labour policies they previously bitterly opposed or spending money like it's water is that none of their traditional supporters seem to care at all. They seem quite happy. Weird.
Yes, it is curious, it is almost as if printing money to spend on the North has always been Conservative policy, alongside a zero carbon economy, nationalisation, and state subsidy of industry.
Of course, discontent may grow when the bills come in.
The UK Tesla Gigafactory will likely be churning out cars and batteries before the next election, with thousands of direct high quality jobs and perhaps tens of thousands of indirect ones to support it. And it’s not going to need state subsidy, just a pair of shiny scissors applied to red tape.
This is the kind of investment that will hopefully mean the money printing and state supported/nationalised industries will not have to last much longer.
Yes, what a lot of people are missing - and it’s the fundamental difference between Conservative and Labour parties - is that the investment that’s coming is mostly private sector investment, creating private sector jobs. Government are mostly creating the conditions for investment then getting out of the way.
That’s obviously in contrast to how the government have reacted during the pandemic, which has been to spend whatever is necessary to solve the immediate issue.
In this case all the Government is going to do is identify a suitable site 250+ acres and tell the council to keep planning away from it. And given the pain that Tesla is currently suffering in Berlin I also suspect that will be what Elon is seeking more than anything else.
It's also way I don't think the Blyth plan works but that existing plan will be why this ends up either in or new a freeport rather than Blyth which would have been a suitable location...
If the windmill blade factory on Teesside is the model, and I think it is as that investment was doing heavy lifting for the Conservatives in the last election campaign, investors can expect substantial direct subsidies from the government as well as big tax breaks including no employer's NICs, stamp duty or business rates as well as capital expenditure being written off undepreciated against tax. The government gets to decide where to put these "Freeports" and will ensure they only go where they support Conservative, not Labour, MPs and mayors.
And people wonder why Hartlepool was won with a 7,000 majority.
I'm not 100% sure about the employer NI side of things as I've not seen any mention of it and were it to appear I would be among the very first people to open up an office there and abuse it.
Freeports are political genius.
Substantively they are pork barrel disguised as industrial policy.
Perfectly suited to a government that seeks to divide the nation in two (well whats left of the UK after independence in two). And some still believe this government is conservative not radical.
The government has been campaigning as being radical. It literally campaigned on being a vote for change - people in Hartlepool voted for change.
It's one of the biggest obstacles facing Labour. This government is not viewed as the latest iteration of Tories in power since 2010. It's seen as a brand new Boris Johnson Brexit Covid government having nothing in common with the Coalition or the administrations of Cameron and May. Part of what drove the Blair landslide of 97 was the general and generic Time For A Change. Nothing to do with policies. People were just sick of the Tories. There's none of that right now. Least not that I can detect.
Always been regulated in London and run by TfL. Even Mrs T didn’t believe in privatising London buses - thank god. One of the finest bus networks in the world.
No comfort to the rest of us paying £4.50 to travel 3 miles from the nearest stop 1.5 miles away. But we rejoice in your good fortune.
The buses up north are shit. An embarrassment in most cities. I do agree they should be regulated by TFManchester TFNewcastle etc.
Buses in Liverpool are very good. About £16 for a weeks pass. Buses from where I live to the city centre and back no more than 5 minutes apart. Still could do with them being unified under council or government as the drivers terms and conditions are getting worse.
And here we have the issue. Some people say they want state control to ensure cheaper tickets, others say they want state control to ensure better pay for the employees.
You do realise that unless taxpayers fund the difference those are two opposing visions. If you want better drivers terms and conditions what will you sacrifice to pay for that? Or do you want the money to come from Schools n Hospitals?
I want local control to ensure a useful local service for everyone, not expensive tickets. It is not beyond the wit of man to enable decent wages and conditions for employees. Bus (and train) services are a common good. They enable citizens to be mobile and able to get to work, shop, and socialise without paying the exhorbitant costs to run cars that is now becoming the norm. Would it be impossible for this to be run as part of the tories “green agenda” or whatever their phrase is this week? I am certain the “red wall” voters would prefer their tax was spent on this than more wind turbines which subsidise rich landowners and give ever more economic power to China.
Absolutely not!
Wind turbines work and provide clean energy that then allows everything else to use energy guilt-free. Want to use electricity? Great, do it, its clean so its not a problem. Want to drive? Great, get an electric car and its clean, go wherever you want guilt-free.
Buses are pissing in the wind in comparison. They're irrelevant claptrap. Useful for people who don't have a car, but they serve zero green purpose.
Try getting rid of the buses in London & see what happens...
I wasn't talking about getting rid of buses in cities.
Most of the country doesn't live in a city though. Cities are irrelevant big picture wise, if they weren't, we'd have a landslide Labour government right now.
I wouldn't say cities are 'irrelevant'. Around one third of the population live in either London or one of the metropolitan areas. About half of the country lives in urban areas of the size of Stoke or bigger.
Where do you live, by the way Philip? I'm assuming from you're perspective you're from a small town or village. (By which I don't mean to denigrate your point of view; being from a big city I naturally generalise from my own experience so it's interesting to see the opposite perspective.)
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
Because that is inconsistent with P T's short term requirements. I like a nice view, and my horses have to live somewhere.
My goodness, but Mark clearly enjoyed writing this one.
Res ipsa loquitur....
I suspect I will have more fun writing the follow-up piece: where the hell does Labour draw its battle lines for the next election?
Thank you for an excellent article. However, prior to the issue of where to draw battle lines are other pressing questions:
What are the simple retail policies, and what is the vision, which Labour can offer, and do it much better than and different from the Tories? ATM I can think of no positive distinguishing features - not a single one.
Where is the leadership team that can do battle with Boris at all, let alone where.
You can win the battle for integrity, truth, justice and kindness but all to no avail. It's Boris you have to beat.
They need some clear red water between themselves and the blue filth. There is definitely room for some real policy creativity here because, exterior to the undead wing of the tory party, nobody gives a fuck how anything is going to be paid for anymore.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
It depends...
On an urban street where the speeds are very low, that may be true.
On a suburban street, with a higher average speed, road noise is louder than the engine noise if the surface hasn't been renewed
I’m open to converting to electric when my very efficient combo eventually dies, as long as I can continue to cook on a gas hob.
Electric hobs are absolutely shit. Conventional, induction, all universally shit. No wonder professional kitchens all use gas.
I used to think the same, but our house had an induction hob when we moved in and I'm not sure I'd switch back to gas now. Heats as quick as gas (faster, I'd say). Smooth hob for cleaning (and it's basically impossible to burn spillages on). The hob itself only gets hot from contact with the saucepan and cools down very quickly, so it's safer for children.
Bit of a problem if you want to char something over a gas flame though!
I've had many representations along these lines – however, I have used induction plenty of times. Given that I can't just look at the flame to immediately tell how hot it is, I decree it as shit, despite the fact that it's notionally 'quicker'.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
That's the point, which is also why the "there's plenty of land" argument is less of a slam dunk than some would have you think. Most of us mostly don't drive for the joy of it- we drive to get to things we want or need. Cars take up an awful lot of space and it has to be at ground level. So there's a Catch 22 where the space swallowed up by cars means that shops, surgeries and so on have to be more distant, so you can't walk to them, so you need 2 or 3 cars per household... and community dies a little more. The market doesn't lie- houses in Georgian squares and similar sell for lots more than modern executive homes, despite the lack of parking and relatively high density. Get the other things right and people don't worry so much about parking.
Labour winning Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester, Nottingham and Derby. The Tories everywhere else. Perhaps there is a size of town or city at which it now becomes Labour. 200,000?
Yes. The current rule in England is simple: Labour dominates in larger urban, BAME and posh/Guardianista seats. Their fourth strength - midland and north towns is vanished or vanishing fast.
Their presence elsewhere approaches zero.
Movers, shakers and commentators all live in non Tory seats in these three Labour categories and treat ordinary real places as odd, or even as jokes. But they are the greater part of England and fully explains the Tory position in seats. Once the fourth group has gone (along with Scotland) there aren't enough seats for Labour to attack.
Anyone who thinks Labour can dominate Sussex, Hampshire and Wiltshire to replace them will need to take a hard look.
Durham as an area and county is a good recent example. Cumbria another. In 1997 it has 4 Lab and 2 Tory seats. It now has 0 Labour, 1 LD (highly marginal) and 5 Tory. Many of the talking heads don't know it exists or think it is in Scotland.
Only a Blair or a centre left alliance could solve this unless the Tory machine fails altogether. (Which it might)
Even the ones you mention aren't safe. For example, Leicester's predominate ethnic minority is Indian / Hindu and two of the seats (East and West) are now within striking difference for the Tories, especially as there seems a further shift of Indian voters to the Conservatives. Derby North is potentially also in striking distance given there is a 2500 Brexit vote to squeeze. Two of the Coventry seats are marginal. Birmingham probably is relatively safe for Labour, as is Nottingham because of the university.
Merseyside and South Wales remain solid for Labour. So are the university seats and core cities, but that’s nowhere near enough.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I've seen the forcing people to "get their boilers changed when they work fine" thing a few times, but I've never seen any evidence that this is policy for any government/party anywhere. What's talked about is ending installation of new gas boilers from date X, but that's not the same thing at all. If that happens, then people will keep their existing boilers until they fail (as they do now) and when they fail the replacement will be (for most - as switching to heat pumps or solar thermal will be uneconomic for most retro-fits) a drop-in electric replacement.
Now, that can still be a bad thing from a consumer point of view, if TCO for the replacement is higher than TCO for an equivalent, no longer available, gas boiler. But it is very different to being forced to "get their boilers changed".
Edit to add: I know of a couple of self-builds/major renovations near us where the owner-occupiers have chosen electric boilers over oil/LPG as the all-round better option. We're on gas main with gas boiler, but at the edge of an area with mains gas connection. Interesting that electric boilers are starting to look attractive against oil/LPG, there's clearly the hassle aspect with a fuel that needs delivery and storage, but still something pretty much unheard of a few years back.
Did you see the microwave based boiler concept earlier this year? I think that's going to be the solution as its price competitive and slots into existing spaces. Over 10-15 years the existing stock of gas boilers will naturally get replaced so there's no need to get people to change early or pay extortionate prices for air or ground based heat pump systems.
Yep. I never really saw anything that explained the benefits over more traditional electric boilers, but I guess it's about being able to dump more energy into water more quickly without a big (expensive and point of failure) heat exchanger?
I guess it's solid state and will be more efficient, plus it will stand up to hard water areas a lot better than any immersion based heating.
Good points that whereas electricity -> heat conversion in a heating element is approx 100%, microwave generators less efficient in general. Solid state more efficient? THe Wayv group claim 96% so pretty close, probably about the same in practice.
So yeah, could well be second point on hard water (and, indeed, corrosion). No single very hot metal area would slow down both. If you can simplify design/save on materials/extend life then it becomes preferential to the oversized kettle design. Few ifs there, though!
Always been regulated in London and run by TfL. Even Mrs T didn’t believe in privatising London buses - thank god. One of the finest bus networks in the world.
No comfort to the rest of us paying £4.50 to travel 3 miles from the nearest stop 1.5 miles away. But we rejoice in your good fortune.
The buses up north are shit. An embarrassment in most cities. I do agree they should be regulated by TFManchester TFNewcastle etc.
Buses in Liverpool are very good. About £16 for a weeks pass. Buses from where I live to the city centre and back no more than 5 minutes apart. Still could do with them being unified under council or government as the drivers terms and conditions are getting worse.
And here we have the issue. Some people say they want state control to ensure cheaper tickets, others say they want state control to ensure better pay for the employees.
You do realise that unless taxpayers fund the difference those are two opposing visions. If you want better drivers terms and conditions what will you sacrifice to pay for that? Or do you want the money to come from Schools n Hospitals?
I want local control to ensure a useful local service for everyone, not expensive tickets. It is not beyond the wit of man to enable decent wages and conditions for employees. Bus (and train) services are a common good. They enable citizens to be mobile and able to get to work, shop, and socialise without paying the exhorbitant costs to run cars that is now becoming the norm. Would it be impossible for this to be run as part of the tories “green agenda” or whatever their phrase is this week? I am certain the “red wall” voters would prefer their tax was spent on this than more wind turbines which subsidise rich landowners and give ever more economic power to China.
Absolutely not!
Wind turbines work and provide clean energy that then allows everything else to use energy guilt-free. Want to use electricity? Great, do it, its clean so its not a problem. Want to drive? Great, get an electric car and its clean, go wherever you want guilt-free.
Buses are pissing in the wind in comparison. They're irrelevant claptrap. Useful for people who don't have a car, but they serve zero green purpose.
Try getting rid of the buses in London & see what happens...
I wasn't talking about getting rid of buses in cities.
Most of the country doesn't live in a city though. Cities are irrelevant big picture wise, if they weren't, we'd have a landslide Labour government right now.
I wouldn't say cities are 'irrelevant'. Around one third of the population live in either London or one of the metropolitan areas. About half of the country lives in urban areas of the size of Stoke or bigger.
Where do you live, by the way Philip? I'm assuming from you're perspective you're from a small town or village. (By which I don't mean to denigrate your point of view; being from a big city I naturally generalise from my own experience so it's interesting to see the opposite perspective.)
No not small. Medium sized northern town. Neither city nor rural, kind of your every day suburban town. That's the point though, typical towns don't rely upon buses, or trams or trains, they rely upon cars. Comparable to Stoke but more northern.
Stoke is not a city like London. I used to live near Stoke. Do you think most Stoke residents get about by bus or by car?
Mr. Max, I'd also question that on resilience grounds.
If everything (boiler, cooking) is electric, then if you lose power you not only have no electricity, you can't cook anything and you lose the heating.
A few years ago, after one of the big storms, there was total loss of power where a chap I knew from work lived.
As is common, out in the country, most people had oil heating. They were stuffed because they needed electricity to run the pump for the oil and the electric igniter.
My friend was OK because he was a bit of a prepper and had bought a diesel generator which he had modified to run on heating oil. And had a battery backup. So when the electricity went out, the battery backup cut in, and the generator auto started....
Some years ago we were in Honolulu and there was an earthquake. Big enough to cause the tower block hotel in which we were staying to sway alarmingly, but, apparently the only serious damage was to the power station (never did find out why). Anyway all the shops were either closed or only allowing one or two people in, and there were no restaurants, fast food places or whatever open. We (wife and a couple with whom we were holidaying) wandered about and eventually found a Vietnamese take-away who cooked on a gas-fired wok. We were lucky and found it early, because by the time we'd been served the queue was down the street. He didn't have an electric till, either, just a large box. IIRC everything he sold that day was in whole dollars.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
The EU AVAS directive means BEVs have to emit an artificial noise of at least 56db up to speeds of 20km/hr. The BMW i4 had its noise custom synthesised the composer Hans Zimmer who's done loads of films I can't remember but am sure are notable.
My goodness, but Mark clearly enjoyed writing this one.
Res ipsa loquitur....
I suspect I will have more fun writing the follow-up piece: where the hell does Labour draw its battle lines for the next election?
Thank you for an excellent article. However, prior to the issue of where to draw battle lines are other pressing questions:
What are the simple retail policies, and what is the vision, which Labour can offer, and do it much better than and different from the Tories? ATM I can think of no positive distinguishing features - not a single one.
Where is the leadership team that can do battle with Boris at all, let alone where.
You can win the battle for integrity, truth, justice and kindness but all to no avail. It's Boris you have to beat.
They need some clear red water between themselves and the blue filth. There is definitely room for some real policy creativity here because, exterior to the undead wing of the tory party, nobody gives a fuck how anything is going to be paid for anymore.
You should watch "The Omega Man" . I feel sure with your terminology it would suit you very well.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
Because that is inconsistent with P T's short term requirements. I like a nice view, and my horses have to live somewhere.
If you like a nice view buy the view. Keep your horses on the field after you have bought it. Once you've paid to buy what you like the view of, nobody will develop it. Since it will be yours.
Labour winning Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester, Nottingham and Derby. The Tories everywhere else. Perhaps there is a size of town or city at which it now becomes Labour. 200,000?
Yes. The current rule in England is simple: Labour dominates in larger urban, BAME and posh/Guardianista seats. Their fourth strength - midland and north towns is vanished or vanishing fast.
Their presence elsewhere approaches zero.
Movers, shakers and commentators all live in non Tory seats in these three Labour categories and treat ordinary real places as odd, or even as jokes. But they are the greater part of England and fully explains the Tory position in seats. Once the fourth group has gone (along with Scotland) there aren't enough seats for Labour to attack.
Anyone who thinks Labour can dominate Sussex, Hampshire and Wiltshire to replace them will need to take a hard look.
Durham as an area and county is a good recent example. Cumbria another. In 1997 it has 4 Lab and 2 Tory seats. It now has 0 Labour, 1 LD (highly marginal) and 5 Tory. Many of the talking heads don't know it exists or think it is in Scotland.
Only a Blair or a centre left alliance could solve this unless the Tory machine fails altogether. (Which it might)
Even the ones you mention aren't safe. For example, Leicester's predominate ethnic minority is Indian / Hindu and two of the seats (East and West) are now within striking difference for the Tories, especially as there seems a further shift of Indian voters to the Conservatives. Derby North is potentially also in striking distance given there is a 2500 Brexit vote to squeeze. Two of the Coventry seats are marginal. Birmingham probably is relatively safe for Labour, as is Nottingham because of the university.
Derby North is already Conservative!
It's more than just the university (universities, in fact) in Nottingham. All three Nottingham seats have swung massively to Labour over the past 30 years. Perhaps it is an age profile effect? I wonder if Nottingham North (the least university-ish seat) has also got younger.
Nottingham has all three relevant effects: urban, BAME, academia/Guardianista.
Nottingham North, however, is neither BAME nor Guardianista. It's very WWC. Perhaps there's an adjacency effect? The other two are all three, to varying extents.
I lived there a few years ago (Bulwell). It's as you say, but doesn't have a feeling of being desperately poor either - people get by OK, the public transport is great, there are good inexpensive supermarkets. The main issue is an alarming level of poor literacy (one of the worst in Britain) so there are a lot of people on low-paid jobs. But unemployment is low, cheap housing is plentiful and generally I think people feel life is not that bad.
Yes, in most respects it's classic red wall territory. From my experience, it feels socio-economically not unlike Bolsover, or indeed Hartlepool. And yet it has swung gradually towards Labour these last 30 years. And I wonder why? Sure, it's in a city, but that doesn't satisfy me as an answer - why should simply being in a city result in a swing to labour? We would normally answer cultural reasons (the Guardian argument) or socio-economic reasons (ethnic minorities or age of voters) - but neither of these seem to be true here. Perhaps it is a homeowning issue? There are a lot of council tenants in Nottingham North - signifcantly more than Hartlepool or Bolsover? Perhaps Bulwell isn't as typical of the seat as the Broxtowe estate (which confusingly is in Nottingham North, not Broxtowe (I say this for general clarity; obviously Nick P is fully aware of this!))
The curious thing about the Tories implementing UKIP or Labour policies they previously bitterly opposed or spending money like it's water is that none of their traditional supporters seem to care at all. They seem quite happy. Weird.
Yes, it is curious, it is almost as if printing money to spend on the North has always been Conservative policy, alongside a zero carbon economy, nationalisation, and state subsidy of industry.
Of course, discontent may grow when the bills come in.
The UK Tesla Gigafactory will likely be churning out cars and batteries before the next election, with thousands of direct high quality jobs and perhaps tens of thousands of indirect ones to support it. And it’s not going to need state subsidy, just a pair of shiny scissors applied to red tape.
This is the kind of investment that will hopefully mean the money printing and state supported/nationalised industries will not have to last much longer.
Yes, what a lot of people are missing - and it’s the fundamental difference between Conservative and Labour parties - is that the investment that’s coming is mostly private sector investment, creating private sector jobs. Government are mostly creating the conditions for investment then getting out of the way.
That’s obviously in contrast to how the government have reacted during the pandemic, which has been to spend whatever is necessary to solve the immediate issue.
In this case all the Government is going to do is identify a suitable site 250+ acres and tell the council to keep planning away from it. And given the pain that Tesla is currently suffering in Berlin I also suspect that will be what Elon is seeking more than anything else.
It's also way I don't think the Blyth plan works but that existing plan will be why this ends up either in or new a freeport rather than Blyth which would have been a suitable location...
If the windmill blade factory on Teesside is the model, and I think it is as that investment was doing heavy lifting for the Conservatives in the last election campaign, investors can expect substantial direct subsidies from the government as well as big tax breaks including no employer's NICs, stamp duty or business rates as well as capital expenditure being written off undepreciated against tax. The government gets to decide where to put these "Freeports" and will ensure they only go where they support Conservative, not Labour, MPs and mayors.
And people wonder why Hartlepool was won with a 7,000 majority.
I'm not 100% sure about the employer NI side of things as I've not seen any mention of it and were it to appear I would be among the very first people to open up an office there and abuse it.
Freeports are political genius.
Substantively they are pork barrel disguised as industrial policy.
Perfectly suited to a government that seeks to divide the nation in two (well whats left of the UK after independence in two). And some still believe this government is conservative not radical.
The government has been campaigning as being radical. It literally campaigned on being a vote for change - people in Hartlepool voted for change.
Yep. A change from the Labour government. Yes, the Tories have been in office not Labour. But when local Labour have no ideas and no vision for anything beyond "its the Tories fault" its easy for black to become white and people vote for an 11 year old government to deliver change against 11 years of local decline.
Starve local government of funding, then present yourself as a refreshing change to the people running local government. Good game, good game.
Ah because things were so much better for Hartlepudlians when they were represented by Peter "Your preoccupation with the working-class vote is wrong. They've got nowhere to go" Mandleson?
The point is that local government took the brunt of post 2010 austerity. When assessing its performance this should be taken into account.
Unless of course one just wants to bandy around groupthink cliches about Labour "sneering at the working class" and "taking their votes for granted".
In which case, carry on. The challenge is only to write the same shit using slightly different words in a slightly different order. And some don't even bother with that.
Mr. Thompson, quite useful having a domestic food supply, however. Especially if political woe or unforeseen events (tanker blocking the Suez Canal, or a pandemic) cause disruption with global supplies.
Of course but we already import a lot of our food anyway.
Why do we need to dedicate 70% of land to agriculture? If we dedicated instead 60% of land to agriculture, that would still provide a major domestic food supply and free up 10% of land for useful stuff.
In comparison all housing combined for the entire nation uses 5% of land.
So changing 70% to 69% green, would provide for a 20% increase in housing land.
Mr. Max, I'd also question that on resilience grounds.
If everything (boiler, cooking) is electric, then if you lose power you not only have no electricity, you can't cook anything and you lose the heating.
Pretty sure our gas boiler stops operating if the power goes off (pump certainly stops, so heating would stop). You could run a gas fire, presumably, if you had one. Or a wood stove, of course (been in that situation).
Mr. Thompson, quite useful having a domestic food supply, however. Especially if political woe or unforeseen events (tanker blocking the Suez Canal, or a pandemic) cause disruption with global supplies.
Of course but we already import a lot of our food anyway.
Why do we need to dedicate 70% of land to agriculture? If we dedicated instead 60% of land to agriculture, that would still provide a major domestic food supply and free up 10% of land for useful stuff.
In comparison all housing combined for the entire nation uses 5% of land.
So changing 70% to 69% green, would provide for a 20% increase in housing land.
Always been regulated in London and run by TfL. Even Mrs T didn’t believe in privatising London buses - thank god. One of the finest bus networks in the world.
No comfort to the rest of us paying £4.50 to travel 3 miles from the nearest stop 1.5 miles away. But we rejoice in your good fortune.
The buses up north are shit. An embarrassment in most cities. I do agree they should be regulated by TFManchester TFNewcastle etc.
Buses in Liverpool are very good. About £16 for a weeks pass. Buses from where I live to the city centre and back no more than 5 minutes apart. Still could do with them being unified under council or government as the drivers terms and conditions are getting worse.
And here we have the issue. Some people say they want state control to ensure cheaper tickets, others say they want state control to ensure better pay for the employees.
You do realise that unless taxpayers fund the difference those are two opposing visions. If you want better drivers terms and conditions what will you sacrifice to pay for that? Or do you want the money to come from Schools n Hospitals?
I want local control to ensure a useful local service for everyone, not expensive tickets. It is not beyond the wit of man to enable decent wages and conditions for employees. Bus (and train) services are a common good. They enable citizens to be mobile and able to get to work, shop, and socialise without paying the exhorbitant costs to run cars that is now becoming the norm. Would it be impossible for this to be run as part of the tories “green agenda” or whatever their phrase is this week? I am certain the “red wall” voters would prefer their tax was spent on this than more wind turbines which subsidise rich landowners and give ever more economic power to China.
Absolutely not!
Wind turbines work and provide clean energy that then allows everything else to use energy guilt-free. Want to use electricity? Great, do it, its clean so its not a problem. Want to drive? Great, get an electric car and its clean, go wherever you want guilt-free.
Buses are pissing in the wind in comparison. They're irrelevant claptrap. Useful for people who don't have a car, but they serve zero green purpose.
Try getting rid of the buses in London & see what happens...
I wasn't talking about getting rid of buses in cities.
Most of the country doesn't live in a city though. Cities are irrelevant big picture wise, if they weren't, we'd have a landslide Labour government right now.
I wouldn't say cities are 'irrelevant'. Around one third of the population live in either London or one of the metropolitan areas. About half of the country lives in urban areas of the size of Stoke or bigger.
Where do you live, by the way Philip? I'm assuming from you're perspective you're from a small town or village. (By which I don't mean to denigrate your point of view; being from a big city I naturally generalise from my own experience so it's interesting to see the opposite perspective.)
It has been made clear to city dwellers that we are irrelevant politically. Of course as a third to half the population, we should not be, but that is the state of the nation now.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
It depends...
On an urban street where the speeds are very low, that may be true.
On a suburban street, with a higher average speed, road noise is louder than the engine noise if the surface hasn't been renewed
Yes that's true. I'm talking about city streets here, not motorways. Quietening motorways is much harder (my pet scheme is that in urban areas where the are lots of receptors around we put lids on them and put parkland on the top. They've done it in Antwerp. Though I readily concede there are many competing demands on public funds.)
Mr. Thompson, I quite like eating the food that farms make.
So do I.
I don't give a shit which country makes that food though. Land for agriculture is not a UK competitive advantage.
We don't need to remove all our agricultural land either. If we reduced agriculture to say 60% of land and 0.5% of GDP then that would free up a tremendous amount of land for doing useful stuff with.
I tell you what I don’t give a shit about. Which country makes vaccines.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
The EU AVAS directive means BEVs have to emit an artificial noise of at least 56db up to speeds of 20km/hr. The BMW i4 had its noise custom synthesised the composer Hans Zimmer who's done loads of films I can't remember but am sure are notable.
Would be nice to be able to customise the sound to “Ride of the Valkyries” for your electric car.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
I’m open to converting to electric when my very efficient combo eventually dies, as long as I can continue to cook on a gas hob.
Electric hobs are absolutely shit. Conventional, induction, all universally shit. No wonder professional kitchens all use gas.
I used to think the same, but our house had an induction hob when we moved in and I'm not sure I'd switch back to gas now. Heats as quick as gas (faster, I'd say). Smooth hob for cleaning (and it's basically impossible to burn spillages on). The hob itself only gets hot from contact with the saucepan and cools down very quickly, so it's safer for children.
Bit of a problem if you want to char something over a gas flame though!
I've had many representations along these lines – however, I have used induction plenty of times. Given that I can't just look at the flame to immediately tell how hot it is, I decree it as shit, despite the fact that it's notionally 'quicker'.
Cooking on gas is just more visceral.
I remember looking a right tit in a hostel in Stockholm in 2008 or so, trying to cook dinner. Fancy looking hob, everything in Swedish. I turned it on, I thought, but no visual feedback. Tried wafting my hand over the hob I thought should be hot, but nothing. Very confused. Eventually another guest came over and explained what was going on.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
The curious thing about the Tories implementing UKIP or Labour policies they previously bitterly opposed or spending money like it's water is that none of their traditional supporters seem to care at all. They seem quite happy. Weird.
It's because the Conservatives primary motivation is winning and rubbing their opponents faces in it.
They laugh at their opposition's principles and continue to remain in power.
What is the point of power for if it means doing things that you were against five minutes ago?
The Thatcherite right is clearly dead in British politics.
Despite the name, the Conservative Party is not some kind of historical re-enactment society; it adapts its tactics and strategy to the current circumstances while always holding to its most fundamental priorities: to keep socialists out of power, and to conserve as much as can be conserved while achieving that goal. To have offered the nation a purely Thatcherite economic prospectus in the context of 2019 would have been the best way to propel Jeremy Corbyn into power, and as such would have been a profoundly un-Conservative thing to do.
Labour, by contrast, is remarkably backward-looking. The left look back to Attlee as their supreme model; the right look not only to Blairism for victory, but as Lord Adonis asserted just a few days ago, to Blair himself (!). The party of progress and solidarity is paradoxically stuck in the past and fatally riven; Conservatives stick together and look to the future.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
Air is 0% of the UK economy. Try doing without it. The economics of agriculture show that money and the significance of something are non identical.
We import much of our food already and have done for centuries. What difference does it make if we import a bit more?
The only difference it would make to most people's lives is their lives could be better - and they'd see fewer fields from the sky in the moment between take off/landing in a plane and being above the clouds.
A high degree of capacity for self sufficiency in food is a good long term strategy - just as it is in air, water and energy. It makes life a little more difficult for enemies, is a good use of land and in many respects though not all enhances the environment.
I agree that the proportions are up for debate, and that there should be changes. Much more rewilding, abolition of London's useless green belt, better uses of marginal land, reclaiming of fen and peat bog - lots of stuff can make it better. But the post war policy of food production has served us well. And an island economy is more vulnerable than others to blockade.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
The EU AVAS directive means BEVs have to emit an artificial noise of at least 56db up to speeds of 20km/hr. The BMW i4 had its noise custom synthesised the composer Hans Zimmer who's done loads of films I can't remember but am sure are notable.
Would be nice to be able to customise the sound to “Ride of the Valkyries” for your electric car.
Because that is inconsistent with P T's short term requirements. I like a nice view, and my horses have to live somewhere.
He won't be happy until the North Pennines AONB looks like this.
I'd rather more land looked like this.
Could you at least pick something that looks nice and is at least vaguely symmetrical - on the long walk to Aldi / M&S we go past a new estate and some of the houses are built with windows that emphasis that all the rooms on one side are about 7ft wide max.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
The most environmentally friendly option would be to allow the population to peak and then go into decline. We’ve spent (via the UNFPA) quite a lot of money encouraging Bangladesh to head towards this point so to reject it at home would require some tricky introspection.
The political classes can go back to playing SimCity.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
Absolubtely belting through the ages now in the rollout. The Gov't must have a good idea of response to keep the queues full but not overly long.
When they’re down past 30, do they just open it up to everyone on a walk-in basis, given the huge number of vaccine deliveries coming in June?
Moving to a walk-in bases risks stories of long queues which might put those who are time constrained (people who work on an hourly basis or have childcare issues) off from getting an earlier jab.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
When I get feedback, one of the things [staff from disadvantaged backgrounds] raise is the degree to which the conversation is all about politics and about people on Twitter that everyone's following," civil servant Alistair tells the researchers.
"You know, the majority of the country are not reading these tweets. Probably the entire audience for this tweet that we're discussing at the moment is in this room!"
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
Always been regulated in London and run by TfL. Even Mrs T didn’t believe in privatising London buses - thank god. One of the finest bus networks in the world.
No comfort to the rest of us paying £4.50 to travel 3 miles from the nearest stop 1.5 miles away. But we rejoice in your good fortune.
The buses up north are shit. An embarrassment in most cities. I do agree they should be regulated by TFManchester TFNewcastle etc.
Buses in Liverpool are very good. About £16 for a weeks pass. Buses from where I live to the city centre and back no more than 5 minutes apart. Still could do with them being unified under council or government as the drivers terms and conditions are getting worse.
And here we have the issue. Some people say they want state control to ensure cheaper tickets, others say they want state control to ensure better pay for the employees.
You do realise that unless taxpayers fund the difference those are two opposing visions. If you want better drivers terms and conditions what will you sacrifice to pay for that? Or do you want the money to come from Schools n Hospitals?
I want local control to ensure a useful local service for everyone, not expensive tickets. It is not beyond the wit of man to enable decent wages and conditions for employees. Bus (and train) services are a common good. They enable citizens to be mobile and able to get to work, shop, and socialise without paying the exhorbitant costs to run cars that is now becoming the norm. Would it be impossible for this to be run as part of the tories “green agenda” or whatever their phrase is this week? I am certain the “red wall” voters would prefer their tax was spent on this than more wind turbines which subsidise rich landowners and give ever more economic power to China.
Absolutely not!
Wind turbines work and provide clean energy that then allows everything else to use energy guilt-free. Want to use electricity? Great, do it, its clean so its not a problem. Want to drive? Great, get an electric car and its clean, go wherever you want guilt-free.
Buses are pissing in the wind in comparison. They're irrelevant claptrap. Useful for people who don't have a car, but they serve zero green purpose.
Try getting rid of the buses in London & see what happens...
I wasn't talking about getting rid of buses in cities.
Most of the country doesn't live in a city though. Cities are irrelevant big picture wise, if they weren't, we'd have a landslide Labour government right now.
I wouldn't say cities are 'irrelevant'. Around one third of the population live in either London or one of the metropolitan areas. About half of the country lives in urban areas of the size of Stoke or bigger.
Where do you live, by the way Philip? I'm assuming from you're perspective you're from a small town or village. (By which I don't mean to denigrate your point of view; being from a big city I naturally generalise from my own experience so it's interesting to see the opposite perspective.)
It has been made clear to city dwellers that we are irrelevant politically. Of course as a third to half the population, we should not be, but that is the state of the nation now.
The Democrats win in the USA with natural massive appeal to the cities and the suburbs, Labour here is always going to struggle if they can't win Wolverhampton North East, Birmingham Northfield and Chingford, and come within a few hundred votes of losing Coventry South and Cov NW. OK So rural England is always going to be tough for Labour but the rot goes deeper than any perceived demographic shift.
The curious thing about the Tories implementing UKIP or Labour policies they previously bitterly opposed or spending money like it's water is that none of their traditional supporters seem to care at all. They seem quite happy. Weird.
It's because the Conservatives primary motivation is winning and rubbing their opponents faces in it.
They laugh at their opposition's principles and continue to remain in power.
What is the point of power for if it means doing things that you were against five minutes ago?
The Thatcherite right is clearly dead in British politics.
Despite the name, the Conservative Party is not some kind of historical re-enactment society; it adapts its tactics and strategy to the current circumstances while always holding to its most fundamental priorities: to keep socialists out of power, and to conserve as much as can be conserved while achieving that goal. To have offered the nation a purely Thatcherite economic prospectus in the context of 2019 would have been the best way to propel Jeremy Corbyn into power, and as such would have been a profoundly un-Conservative thing to do.
Labour, by contrast, is remarkably backward-looking. The left look back to Attlee as their supreme model; the right look not only to Blairism for victory, but as Lord Adonis asserted just a few days ago, to Blair himself (!). The party of progress and solidarity is paradoxically stuck in the past and fatally riven; Conservatives stick together and look to the future.
The Conservative Party continues to be the most cutting-edge party in England at least, fast getting there in Wales.
That our opponents think we should play by some other set of rules to enable them a fair crack of the whip is endlessly amusing. "But they morphed...can they do that? Is that right?" It is a failure to "get" politics - in the same way as bitching about the electorate they have got....
Absolubtely belting through the ages now in the rollout. The Gov't must have a good idea of response to keep the queues full but not overly long.
Yes, I expect all over 30s to get the call next week at some point. I think in a 7 day period we were getting through a 1.5 year age cohort, that is now expected to go up to 4 years in a 7 day period. With a few peak days we should have everyone over 26 first jabbed two weeks before June 21st and everyone over 18 by then.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's my sense too. It's the way to go imo. I hope she gets the nod.
Stop the rot, turn the corner, light the fuse, take flight.
Right idea, but you're thinking too short term. Parachute Euan Blair into every by-election until he wins a seat and start grooming him as party leader. To take over after Starmer's cleared out a few of the more objectionable wing and then gone slightly backwards (seat-wise) in 2024.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
The most environmentally friendly option would be to allow the population to peak and then go into decline. We’ve spent (via the UNFPA) quite a lot of money encouraging Bangladesh to head towards this point so to reject it at home would require some tricky introspection.
The political classes can go back to playing SimCity.
SimCity is very 2000s. Cities:Skylines is where it's been at for several years now.
Absolubtely belting through the ages now in the rollout. The Gov't must have a good idea of response to keep the queues full but not overly long.
Yes, I expect all over 30s to get the call next week at some point. I think in a 7 day period we were getting through a 1.5 year age cohort, that is now expected to go up to 4 years in a 7 day period. With a few peak days we should have everyone over 26 first jabbed two weeks before June 21st and everyone over 18 by then.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
When I get feedback, one of the things [staff from disadvantaged backgrounds] raise is the degree to which the conversation is all about politics and about people on Twitter that everyone's following," civil servant Alistair tells the researchers.
"You know, the majority of the country are not reading these tweets. Probably the entire audience for this tweet that we're discussing at the moment is in this room!"
Amen!
Not sure pb.com community can throw any stones when it comes to discussing tweets the public don't care about.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
I have done so.
Fantastic. That's the free market solution.
Now if you get a tempting offer that says I will give you ££££ for some of that land to be built on, then in my view that should be between you as the owner and the prospective buyers. Nobody else.
Just called my GP surgery. Apparently "2nd jabs" for those who had their 1st booked via their GP are now also handled through the online booking system. FFS — when were they going to tell me?
If I hadn't asked, I'd still be waiting for a call in 4 weeks time.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
When I get feedback, one of the things [staff from disadvantaged backgrounds] raise is the degree to which the conversation is all about politics and about people on Twitter that everyone's following," civil servant Alistair tells the researchers.
"You know, the majority of the country are not reading these tweets. Probably the entire audience for this tweet that we're discussing at the moment is in this room!"
Amen!
Indeed. But that's a slightly off piste point. The main thrust of the findings is to confirm that our old friend Class Privilege is alive and well in the Civil Service.
I’m open to converting to electric when my very efficient combo eventually dies, as long as I can continue to cook on a gas hob.
Electric hobs are absolutely shit. Conventional, induction, all universally shit. No wonder professional kitchens all use gas.
I used to think the same, but our house had an induction hob when we moved in and I'm not sure I'd switch back to gas now. Heats as quick as gas (faster, I'd say). Smooth hob for cleaning (and it's basically impossible to burn spillages on). The hob itself only gets hot from contact with the saucepan and cools down very quickly, so it's safer for children.
Bit of a problem if you want to char something over a gas flame though!
I've had many representations along these lines – however, I have used induction plenty of times. Given that I can't just look at the flame to immediately tell how hot it is, I decree it as shit, despite the fact that it's notionally 'quicker'.
Cooking on gas is just more visceral.
I remember looking a right tit in a hostel in Stockholm in 2008 or so, trying to cook dinner. Fancy looking hob, everything in Swedish. I turned it on, I thought, but no visual feedback. Tried wafting my hand over the hob I thought should be hot, but nothing. Very confused. Eventually another guest came over and explained what was going on.
Several of our pans don't work on our induction hob. At first we thought it was the hob, until we tried the right pan.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
I have done so.
Fantastic. That's the free market solution.
Now if you get a tempting offer that says I will give you ££££ for some of that land to be built on, then in my view that should be between you as the owner and the prospective buyers. Nobody else.
I am paying with my own money to boost biodiversity on some poorly managed land that is not particularly suitable for housing for a number of reasons. It is not a scaleable answer to the problem.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
I have done so.
Fantastic. That's the free market solution.
Now if you get a tempting offer that says I will give you ££££ for some of that land to be built on, then in my view that should be between you as the owner and the prospective buyers. Nobody else.
I am paying with my own money to boost biodiversity on some poorly managed land that is not particularly suitable for housing for a number of reasons. It is not a scaleable answer to the problem.
Of course it is. Let people pay for what they want.
If people want spacious land with glorious views pay for it.
If people want somewhere to live pay for it.
Problem is right now people can't do the latter even if there's a willing seller and a willing buyer.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
When I get feedback, one of the things [staff from disadvantaged backgrounds] raise is the degree to which the conversation is all about politics and about people on Twitter that everyone's following," civil servant Alistair tells the researchers.
"You know, the majority of the country are not reading these tweets. Probably the entire audience for this tweet that we're discussing at the moment is in this room!"
Amen!
Indeed. But that's a slightly off piste point. The main thrust of the findings is to confirm that our old friend Class Privilege is alive and well in the Civil Service.
So Cummings was right then, that massive CS reform is needed?
Just called my GP surgery. Apparently "2nd jabs" for those who had their 1st booked via their GP are now also handled through the online booking system. FFS — when were they going to tell me?
If I hadn't asked, I'd still be waiting for a call in 4 weeks time.
Are you in Scotland? that wasn't the case when my wife had her jab last Friday.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
Just called my GP surgery. Apparently "2nd jabs" for those who had their 1st booked via their GP are now also handled through the online booking system. FFS — when were they going to tell me?
If I hadn't asked, I'd still be waiting for a call in 4 weeks time.
Are you in Scotland? that wasn't the case when my wife had her jab last Friday.
Nb your last response was full of illogic.
I'm in England. I was specifically told when i got my first jab that I had to wait for my GP to contact me about my second jab.
And my last response was full of the same illogic as yours. That was the point.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
People already buy their own view (and privacy) — houses on large plots are expensive for that reason, amongst other things.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
Because the housing market doesn't play to money currently?
Currently people can't afford to buy a home, with or without a view.
Liberalise the housing market and it will be easier to buy a home, but maybe harder to buy a view. So which is more important: being able to buy a house, or buy a view?
PS this already happens in many countries without a draconian planning regime. Communities can buy the fields near them then let them to farmers for peppercorn rents. That way they can only be developed if the community agrees to sell and if the community agrees to sell the community gets the income from selling.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
That's my sense too. It's the way to go imo. I hope she gets the nod.
Stop the rot, turn the corner, light the fuse, take flight.
Right idea, but you're thinking too short term. Parachute Euan Blair into every by-election until he wins a seat and start grooming him as party leader. To take over after Starmer's cleared out a few of the more objectionable wing and then gone slightly backwards (seat-wise) in 2024.
Imaginative. But I don't share the desire of some for Blair2. The 90s were a different world. For me, 2017 is more relevant. Keep the unplugged, unapologetic spirit of that manifesto & campaign but modernize the policy platform. Then if Starmer can't sell it, replace him with someone more streetwise and vibey.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
Yes but if we vote for Labour we aren't voting for your style of North East lefty.
It's London centric lefties, with North East Pidcock who fits in with them that gets the attention and dominate the agenda.
What significant car loving North East lefties set the agenda nowadays?
Just called my GP surgery. Apparently "2nd jabs" for those who had their 1st booked via their GP are now also handled through the online booking system. FFS — when were they going to tell me?
If I hadn't asked, I'd still be waiting for a call in 4 weeks time.
That's odd. I had my second jab booked for 7 June via the online system. But last week I got a phone message out of the blue from GP surgery offering me an earlier jab, this Saturday at the GP surgery. I took up the offer and I'm now booked in for Saturday.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
But what works in the Capital isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example the Tube is an absolute marvel — the Metro up here doesn't even come remotely close. Can you imagine how awful London would be if everyone drove everywhere? There just has to be a balance.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
When I get feedback, one of the things [staff from disadvantaged backgrounds] raise is the degree to which the conversation is all about politics and about people on Twitter that everyone's following," civil servant Alistair tells the researchers.
"You know, the majority of the country are not reading these tweets. Probably the entire audience for this tweet that we're discussing at the moment is in this room!"
Amen!
Indeed. But that's a slightly off piste point. The main thrust of the findings is to confirm that our old friend Class Privilege is alive and well in the Civil Service.
So Cummings was right then, that massive CS reform is needed?
Is there anyone who doesnt think the civil service needs reform? Cummings is hardly unique on that, in fact very mainstream. The question is if the best way to reform the civil service is by putting a few weirdos and misfits in front of 100 tv screens on a giant wall and making them all powerful?
That's my sense too. It's the way to go imo. I hope she gets the nod.
Stop the rot, turn the corner, light the fuse, take flight.
Right idea, but you're thinking too short term. Parachute Euan Blair into every by-election until he wins a seat and start grooming him as party leader. To take over after Starmer's cleared out a few of the more objectionable wing and then gone slightly backwards (seat-wise) in 2024.
Imaginative. But I don't share the desire of some for Blair2. The 90s were a different world. For me, 2017 is more relevant. Keep the unplugged, unapologetic spirit of that manifesto & campaign but modernize the policy platform. Then if Starmer can't sell it, replace him with someone more streetwise and vibey.
Yes, I was (obviously) being facetious. You need Blair's abilities back, not his surname.
Although, I was also making a wider point about how strange I find Labour's occasional dalliance with dynastic legacy (eg B&S) and how poorly it sits with a party that's supposed to be vehemently against inherited privilege.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
It is not just about views. There is also a need to preserve natural habitats for insects and animals, countryside for walks as well as farmland and to provide green spaces with fresh air to reduce pollution.
That is the whole point of council local plans, they ensure development is only allowed where it is sustainable and with enough infrastructure and also preserve the key green spaces within the area
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
But what works in the Capital isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example the Tube is an absolute marvel — the Metro up here doesn't even come remotely close. Can you imagine how awful London would be if everyone drove everywhere? There just has to be a balance.
The issue with public transport is always one of wait time - waiting for the train, waiting for the connection...
Once that gets beyond a few minutes, cars become the preferred option.
Absolubtely belting through the ages now in the rollout. The Gov't must have a good idea of response to keep the queues full but not overly long.
Yes, I expect all over 30s to get the call next week at some point. I think in a 7 day period we were getting through a 1.5 year age cohort, that is now expected to go up to 4 years in a 7 day period. With a few peak days we should have everyone over 26 first jabbed two weeks before June 21st and everyone over 18 by then.
Are you 1st dosed yet ?
Yeah, had mine on Monday, just waiting for the second dose now. Think I might chance the booking system in three or four weeks for an appointment. Would be nice to have both done before the end of June. My wife (29) got the text this morning and is booked in for June 1st so she's pretty chipper. It's clear that the national booking system lags behind local areas quite significantly, when I got my text the national system has just opened to 40-42 and I'm 33.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
Yes but if we vote for Labour we aren't voting for your style of North East lefty.
It's London centric lefties, with North East Pidcock who fits in with them that gets the attention and dominate the agenda.
What significant car loving North East lefties set the agenda nowadays?
I don't really have any idea what Pidcock's transport agenda is to be honest. She apparently lives in Lanchester in Co. Durham and it's pretty much impossible to get anywhere quickly from Lanchester without a car.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
But what works in the Capital isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example the Tube is an absolute marvel — the Metro up here doesn't even come remotely close. Can you imagine how awful London would be if everyone drove everywhere? There just has to be a balance.
Yes but public transport should be viewed as the extreme exception not the norm.
Do the exception well, no issue with that. But understand that the norm for most people is and always will be cars and quite rightly too.
Understand that cars aren't evil and aren't killing the planet too.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
But what works in the Capital isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example the Tube is an absolute marvel — the Metro up here doesn't even come remotely close. Can you imagine how awful London would be if everyone drove everywhere? There just has to be a balance.
The issue with public transport is always one of wait time - waiting for the train, waiting for the connection...
Once that gets beyond a few minutes, cars become the preferred option.
Definitely. When I last visited London I was in absolute awe that in the centre you never have to wait longer than a few minutes for a train. It was just amazing.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
People already buy their own view (and privacy) — houses on large plots are expensive for that reason, amongst other things.
But unless you own the land which is your view - you cannot complain when someone builds on it.
Just called my GP surgery. Apparently "2nd jabs" for those who had their 1st booked via their GP are now also handled through the online booking system. FFS — when were they going to tell me?
If I hadn't asked, I'd still be waiting for a call in 4 weeks time.
That's odd. I had my second jab booked for 7 June via the online system. But last week I got a phone message out of the blue from GP surgery offering me an earlier jab, this Saturday at the GP surgery. I took up the offer and I'm now booked in for Saturday.
I think there is now a centralised point - the NHS system, which GPs have access to when needing to fill up their slots.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
But what works in the Capital isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example the Tube is an absolute marvel — the Metro up here doesn't even come remotely close. Can you imagine how awful London would be if everyone drove everywhere? There just has to be a balance.
Yeah, it's great... for London. There is a trend for London politicians to forget how badly that translates elsewhere. This is a common criticism of senior Labour figures in recent years, and a trap that Starmer absolutely has to avoid if he is to have any chance of success.
The curious thing about the Tories implementing UKIP or Labour policies they previously bitterly opposed or spending money like it's water is that none of their traditional supporters seem to care at all. They seem quite happy. Weird.
It's because the Conservatives primary motivation is winning and rubbing their opponents faces in it.
They laugh at their opposition's principles and continue to remain in power.
What is the point of power for if it means doing things that you were against five minutes ago?
The Thatcherite right is clearly dead in British politics.
Despite the name, the Conservative Party is not some kind of historical re-enactment society; it adapts its tactics and strategy to the current circumstances while always holding to its most fundamental priorities: to keep socialists out of power, and to conserve as much as can be conserved while achieving that goal. To have offered the nation a purely Thatcherite economic prospectus in the context of 2019 would have been the best way to propel Jeremy Corbyn into power, and as such would have been a profoundly un-Conservative thing to do.
Labour, by contrast, is remarkably backward-looking. The left look back to Attlee as their supreme model; the right look not only to Blairism for victory, but as Lord Adonis asserted just a few days ago, to Blair himself (!). The party of progress and solidarity is paradoxically stuck in the past and fatally riven; Conservatives stick together and look to the future.
The Conservative Party continues to be the most cutting-edge party in England at least, fast getting there in Wales.
That our opponents think we should play by some other set of rules to enable them a fair crack of the whip is endlessly amusing. "But they morphed...can they do that? Is that right?" It is a failure to "get" politics - in the same way as bitching about the electorate they have got....
On the contrary, feel sad for you. Must be a rather empty existence to believe in nothing but power and blocking others.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
Yes but if we vote for Labour we aren't voting for your style of North East lefty.
It's London centric lefties, with North East Pidcock who fits in with them that gets the attention and dominate the agenda.
What significant car loving North East lefties set the agenda nowadays?
I don't really have any idea what Pidcock's transport agenda is to be honest. She apparently lives in Lanchester in Co. Durham and it's pretty much impossible to get anywhere quickly from Lanchester without a car.
Yes but who prominent from North East Labour speaks up on behalf of drivers? Speaks up on behalf of making road transportation better? Views driving as a good thing not an evil only for where public transport isn't available?
Comments
Any trade deal will include expanded access for UK farmers to overseas markets too and if Eustice and Gove get their way over Truss tariffs will only be eased on imports of meat gradually and on selected products only
The only difference it would make to most people's lives is their lives could be better - and they'd see fewer fields from the sky in the moment between take off/landing in a plane and being above the clouds.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
Where do you live, by the way Philip? I'm assuming from you're perspective you're from a small town or village. (By which I don't mean to denigrate your point of view; being from a big city I naturally generalise from my own experience so it's interesting to see the opposite perspective.)
On an urban street where the speeds are very low, that may be true.
On a suburban street, with a higher average speed, road noise is louder than the engine noise if the surface hasn't been renewed
Cooking on gas is just more visceral.
Most of us mostly don't drive for the joy of it- we drive to get to things we want or need.
Cars take up an awful lot of space and it has to be at ground level. So there's a Catch 22 where the space swallowed up by cars means that shops, surgeries and so on have to be more distant, so you can't walk to them, so you need 2 or 3 cars per household... and community dies a little more.
The market doesn't lie- houses in Georgian squares and similar sell for lots more than modern executive homes, despite the lack of parking and relatively high density.
Get the other things right and people don't worry so much about parking.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22158/microwaves-vs-gas-or-electric-coil-heating-of-a-water-boiler-in-a-typical-househ
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81956.0
Good points that whereas electricity -> heat conversion in a heating element is approx 100%, microwave generators less efficient in general. Solid state more efficient? THe Wayv group claim 96% so pretty close, probably about the same in practice.
So yeah, could well be second point on hard water (and, indeed, corrosion). No single very hot metal area would slow down both. If you can simplify design/save on materials/extend life then it becomes preferential to the oversized kettle design. Few ifs there, though!
Stoke is not a city like London. I used to live near Stoke. Do you think most Stoke residents get about by bus or by car?
We were lucky and found it early, because by the time we'd been served the queue was down the street. He didn't have an electric till, either, just a large box. IIRC everything he sold that day was in whole dollars.
https://www.indiewire.com/2013/11/who-really-created-the-inception-braaam-composer-mike-zarin-sets-the-record-straight-91690/
What's wrong with that?
Perhaps it is a homeowning issue? There are a lot of council tenants in Nottingham North - signifcantly more than Hartlepool or Bolsover? Perhaps Bulwell isn't as typical of the seat as the Broxtowe estate (which confusingly is in Nottingham North, not Broxtowe (I say this for general clarity; obviously Nick P is fully aware of this!))
Unless of course one just wants to bandy around groupthink cliches about Labour "sneering at the working class" and "taking their votes for granted".
In which case, carry on. The challenge is only to write the same shit using slightly different words in a slightly different order. And some don't even bother with that.
We're coming for you.
GayTory in the village doesn't understand his own party's policies.Stop the rot, turn the corner, light the fuse, take flight.
Hmmm...
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
Labour, by contrast, is remarkably backward-looking. The left look back to Attlee as their supreme model; the right look not only to Blairism for victory, but as Lord Adonis asserted just a few days ago, to Blair himself (!). The party of progress and solidarity is paradoxically stuck in the past and fatally riven; Conservatives stick together and look to the future.
I agree that the proportions are up for debate, and that there should be changes. Much more rewilding, abolition of London's useless green belt, better uses of marginal land, reclaiming of fen and peat bog - lots of stuff can make it better. But the post war policy of food production has served us well. And an island economy is more vulnerable than others to blockade.
"The left hates discipline."
"The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
The political classes can go back to playing SimCity.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57172634
"You know, the majority of the country are not reading these tweets. Probably the entire audience for this tweet that we're discussing at the moment is in this room!"
Amen!
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
OK So rural England is always going to be tough for Labour but the rot goes deeper than any perceived demographic shift.
That our opponents think we should play by some other set of rules to enable them a fair crack of the whip is endlessly amusing. "But they morphed...can they do that? Is that right?" It is a failure to "get" politics - in the same way as bitching about the electorate they have got....
https://twitter.com/housesvictorian/status/928410584827289601
"Preferred pronouns" is out, as it implies choice.
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Now if you get a tempting offer that says I will give you ££££ for some of that land to be built on, then in my view that should be between you as the owner and the prospective buyers. Nobody else.
If I hadn't asked, I'd still be waiting for a call in 4 weeks time.
If people want spacious land with glorious views pay for it.
If people want somewhere to live pay for it.
Problem is right now people can't do the latter even if there's a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Nb your last response was full of illogic.
And my last response was full of the same illogic as yours. That was the point.
Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Currently people can't afford to buy a home, with or without a view.
Liberalise the housing market and it will be easier to buy a home, but maybe harder to buy a view. So which is more important: being able to buy a house, or buy a view?
PS this already happens in many countries without a draconian planning regime. Communities can buy the fields near them then let them to farmers for peppercorn rents. That way they can only be developed if the community agrees to sell and if the community agrees to sell the community gets the income from selling.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
It's London centric lefties, with North East Pidcock who fits in with them that gets the attention and dominate the agenda.
What significant car loving North East lefties set the agenda nowadays?
Although, I was also making a wider point about how strange I find Labour's occasional dalliance with dynastic legacy (eg B&S) and how poorly it sits with a party that's supposed to be vehemently against inherited privilege.
That is the whole point of council local plans, they ensure development is only allowed where it is sustainable and with enough infrastructure and also preserve the key green spaces within the area
Once that gets beyond a few minutes, cars become the preferred option.
Do the exception well, no issue with that. But understand that the norm for most people is and always will be cars and quite rightly too.
Understand that cars aren't evil and aren't killing the planet too.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
Anyone?