Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
The only reason to get a plug-in hybrid ICE, is if you’re running as a company car in your own business, thanks to various tax incentives.
If that’s not you, they make very little sense at all, worst of both worlds.
Indeed. The essay in its length and emptiness has actually made things worse. You read it and you think: wait, is this all there is? Is this Starmer the man? Does he not have a single interesting new idea? It reminds me me Gertrude Stein's withering putdown of Oakland, her boring home-town - "there's no there, there"
At least Boris is entertaining, etc etc. Also I can't see Starmer having the audacity to bring off a foreign policy coup like Aukus
Starmer has revealed himself and the revelation is a void
I suppose on the plus side it's encouraging what is not in it. It's free of Corbynesque hard-left, anti-British lunacy, and doesn't harp on about trans rights or cancelling Churchill. That's something, but it's not enough.
I think the truth is that Starmer would make a good middle-ranking Cabinet minister, but I'm not seeing much in the way of leadership qualities or inspiration. Even that might not be too bad if he had a good team working closely with him, but he seems curiously alone at the top of the party. I don't know whether that is because he doesn't connect with his colleagues, or simply has chosen the wrong inner team.
There's a market for a genuine conservative. Ironically the current Labour leader is it, right now.
Starmer's statement is poor, and I think he's being badly advised.
I thought he may be able to find a new vocabulary, equivalent to a kind of updated Wilsonism, but that statement says nothing new, and is as dated as Tony Blair's first conference speech.
I'm also beginning to think Rayner may be able to find a more distinctive vocabulary.
Yes, what possessed him to pump out 15,000 words of bilge, if he had literally nothing to say?
Better to say zero. His advisors should have stopped him. He will now be mocked by his enemies, and he has disappointed his allies. That's a pretty basic political error
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
I'm not sure I actually suggested that, although it was my view until very recently and to some extent still is.
My brother recently got one as a company car with ~30 mile range (real life, not sure what the stated range is). That is actually enough to do most of the journeys on electric (it's PHEV) for his situation. Work is mostly train, so journeys are mostly around town and to my parents ~13 miles away.
I still think they're a technical dead end - you add a lot of complexity and weight. I doubt I'll ever buy one as a personal car - it's ICE now, at some point it will be electric. But if they shift emissions out of city centres over the next few years then that's a good thing (and maybe also boost demand for a viable charging network).
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
One of those e-scooters would be perfect for my 3-4 mile commute. I even wanted one before covid hit but my wife said no as it wasnt legal.
I think that needs changing. I can ride a pedal bike faster than their maximum speed.
Now they are saying we only need to work 20% of time in the office so the bus is fine for that.
I'm all for electric scooters being banned, or at least regulated. The way kids ride them around here is fairly shocking; far faster than the kids on bikes, and on and off the pavement, down the middle of the road, etc.
In Milton a week or so ago, I saw a couple of lads on a scooter. Wearing dark clothes, in the dark, obviously pi**ed out their minds, weaving all around the road.
In my part of London, they are doing trials of regulated ones *and* cracking down on the illegal usage.
In Hamburg, they geo-lock the Lime Scooters so that in parks and other areas they can only go at a moderate walking pace.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
It is a shame that nobody has worked out a way to build an electric car where the batteries can just be swapped out quickly. It would solve both the charging problems (pull up, swap battery, drive off, charge later using the cheapest electricity available) and the battery lifetime problems.
I understand why - it is safer to build it as part of the vehicle structure, and different car designs need different battery shapes - but maybe there is a way. If only they could be smaller.
That should be how electric trucks end up working, some sort of battery swap lease service.
The packaging is simply too tight, and weight-critical. to do it with cars.
That sounds like Better Place's business model (although that business was well before it's natural time).
I have just listened to one of the climate change zealots on Sky and there is no quarter or reasoning with them
COP26 is seeking a 100 billion a year commitment which he considers is chicken feed demanding more than a trillion
His argument is that the world has spent billions on covid, so they can easily afford the trillions needed for climate change
He trashed the idea of electric cars and demanded public transport everywhere to virtually abolish the car
Zealots like him are doing enormous damage to their cause with these utterly unrealistic demands that no western government could accept if it wanted to stay in power
I am concerned that all the presenters seem to do is to listen to their extraordinary demands and say thank you for your interview
Not one question or attempt to put them on the spot, just simply allowing their views to go unchallenged
And yet these same zealots who are quick to attack the west but never have a bad word for China or Russia
Indeed. The essay in its length and emptiness has actually made things worse. You read it and you think: wait, is this all there is? Is this Starmer the man? Does he not have a single interesting new idea? It reminds me me Gertrude Stein's withering putdown of Oakland, her boring home-town - "there's no there, there"
At least Boris is entertaining, etc etc. Also I can't see Starmer having the audacity to bring off a foreign policy coup like Aukus
Starmer has revealed himself and the revelation is a void
I suppose on the plus side it's encouraging what is not in it. It's free of Corbynesque hard-left, anti-British lunacy, and doesn't harp on about trans rights or cancelling Churchill. That's something, but it's not enough.
I think the truth is that Starmer would make a good middle-ranking Cabinet minister, but I'm not seeing much in the way of leadership qualities or inspiration. Even that might not be too bad if he had a good team working closely with him, but he seems curiously alone at the top of the party. I don't know whether that is because he doesn't connect with his colleagues, or simply has chosen the wrong inner team.
For me despite all the guff about his honesty and decency - he is unable to say what he believes in because he would like the UK back in the EU with full FOM. He is also much closer to Corbyn politically than he dares to admit but some of us remember he served under a leadership which tolerated anti-semitism while remaining shtum!
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
Li-ion battery life is tightly tied to the number of cycles, the depth of the cycle and the temperature excursions experienced by the battery.
Water cooled batteries made a massive difference.
Tesla battery warranty Model 3 Standard Range 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
And, to be fair, I did like this bit in Starmer's essay where he discusses potential new tram systems for the Midlands, and the funding thereof
"and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
With a potential implementation date of 16th June 2022?
Unfortunately for Rayner I think a Northern woman with a tendency to being aggressive in PMQs would play into a classist-sexist stereotype that would go down badly with the public.
Strictly speaking, all of that applied to Margaret Thatcher as well.
The only difference was she lost the accent.
Grantham is in the East Midlands.
North from my point of view - clearly above Birmingham and the Severn-Wash line!
Lincolnshire is the only county which in part feels northern, midland and southern.
Scunthorpe and Grimsby: clearly northern. The names, most of all. Uncompromisingly viking. And the accents. And the nearest big cities - Leeds and Sheffield. A Yorkshireman would quibble, of course, but they'd quibble with everything. And all northerners think the north starts 10 miles south of where they were born. Lincoln, Grantham and Skegness: clearly midland. In the outer orbit of Nottingham and Leicester. And again, the accents: midlands. Stamford: the south. In the far edges of London commuterland. And you could be in the Cotswolds if it wasn't so flat.
Also, Holbeach: clearly East Anglia.
Lincoln itself - the city - is very hard to define. It's quite far north but in places it feels distinctly southern; it's quite far east but doesn't really feel "East Anglian"
The long walk up to the cathedral on a scented, drizzly dusk in midwinter is sublime, creepy and poetic
The River Witham below Lincoln Cathedral flows through a gap in the Lincolnshire Limestone created during the ice age.
East of this gap was a huge glacial lake which eventually became the Fens, North West of the gap was another glacial lake which filled the Vale of York, and South West of the gap was the Trent, which drains most of what we now call the East Midlands.
So if you go far enough back, Lincoln is literally the meeting point of North, East and Midlands.
It is interesting how these divisions persist based on a long lost landscape.
Fascinating!
One reason Lincoln feels southern is the hill, and the lushness of that river, which makes it all feel more like somewhere in Dorset or Somerset or Herefordshire
I love the sensory borders we have in this country and others. Herefordshire and the marches are a good example: Herefordshire is clearly Southern. So, just about, is South Shropshire up to Clun and Ludlow. Beyond that though and it becomes very obviously the Midlands, including the climate, the deep red bricks and the industry.
Then somewhere halfway across Hampshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire we very noticeably transition from the South East to the West Country. The accent changes, the countryside and place names too, and the weather becomes softer.
My favourites though are in France as you drive down the autoroutes. At Laon we lose the Flemish air of Pas de Calais and are clearly in proper France, then at Troyes the building stones change, the forests start and we're in Central France. At Macon another sensory border as the steep pitched roofs give way to Roman canal tiles and cypresses and swimming pools start to appear - we are in the Southern half of the country, just like when you drive through the Vendee into Charente. Finally, just South of Montelimar the midi starts abruptly, literally one ridge and the climate and vegetation are Mediterranean. That must be one of the most abrupt and comprehensive changes within one country.
Amused that OGH is moving on from pinning his hopes on Starmer but after PMQs on Wednesday I'm not at all certain that Rayner is the solution Labour are looking for.
Not a fan of anyone in Labour but Jonathan Ashworth and Jess Phillips seem to be the two MPs who can carry a point across well, even if I don't agree with them.
Don't forget @kinabalu's favourite - ex-public schoolboy Barry Gardiner. Fits the Lab leader profile particularly well.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
It is a shame that nobody has worked out a way to build an electric car where the batteries can just be swapped out quickly. It would solve both the charging problems (pull up, swap battery, drive off, charge later using the cheapest electricity available) and the battery lifetime problems.
I understand why - it is safer to build it as part of the vehicle structure, and different car designs need different battery shapes - but maybe there is a way. If only they could be smaller.
Indeed. The essay in its length and emptiness has actually made things worse. You read it and you think: wait, is this all there is? Is this Starmer the man? Does he not have a single interesting new idea? It reminds me me Gertrude Stein's withering putdown of Oakland, her boring home-town - "there's no there, there"
At least Boris is entertaining, etc etc. Also I can't see Starmer having the audacity to bring off a foreign policy coup like Aukus
Starmer has revealed himself and the revelation is a void
I suppose on the plus side it's encouraging what is not in it. It's free of Corbynesque hard-left, anti-British lunacy, and doesn't harp on about trans rights or cancelling Churchill. That's something, but it's not enough.
I think the truth is that Starmer would make a good middle-ranking Cabinet minister, but I'm not seeing much in the way of leadership qualities or inspiration. Even that might not be too bad if he had a good team working closely with him, but he seems curiously alone at the top of the party. I don't know whether that is because he doesn't connect with his colleagues, or simply has chosen the wrong inner team.
Though there isn't an obvious wealth of talent languishing on the Labour backbenches who have been overlooked. Hence the scrabbling at the back of the cupboard for Ed Balls or Andy Burnham. Not that the Conservatives are in much better a situation.
As Churchill asked, “Où est la masse de manœuvre?” “Aucune”
Starmer's statement is poor, and I think he's being badly advised.
I thought he may be able to find a new vocabulary, equivalent to a kind of updated Wilsonism, but that statement says nothing new, and is as dated as Tony Blair's first conference speech.
I'm also beginning to think Rayner may be able to find a more distinctive vocabulary.
I have heard the rumours Starmer is thinking of standing down and is that really a possibility, and that his reason for attempting to change the rules of accession before he does
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
Li-ion battery life is tightly tied to the number of cycles, the depth of the cycle and the temperature excursions experienced by the battery.
Water cooled batteries made a massive difference.
Tesla battery warranty Model 3 Standard Range 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
Yup - which is structured, like most such warranties, so that it only deals with failures.
Real world measured numbers are 10% per 160,000 miles, or thereabouts.
Agree with Mike that Labour should have a female leader, who would unsettle Boris more than Sir Keir does. My choice would be Jess Phillips but maybe Rayner would do well also. Similar attitude
Jess Phillips is one of a tiny group of possible leaders that would get me thinking about voting Labour in a GE (I usually vote Labour in local elections). Rayner absolutely not. A Rayner leadership would make a Tory majority firm favourite at the next election.
Labour either needs a charismatic reply to Boris (Jess about the only candidate there) or stick with dull decency but adding some actual policy on tough issues.
I think the advantages Jess has are a) being able to be known on first name terms, like a brand ("Boris" even though, yes it isn't his first name), and b) seemingly being a perfect mix of the two sides of the Labour coin - she is politicxally quite a Blairite, but comes across like an angry Corbynite. Party diehards will know the truth, but the average voter will see a kind of (deliberately) common looking, plain speaking, working class woman, authentic old Labour rather than a grammar school educated middle class, daughter of quite high achieving parents, authentic new Labour
Good post and thinking, but the Brummie accent? Hmm.
She hasn't got a Brummie accent- she's form Stockport
The UK has the following accents:
The Queen Posh southerners Poor Londoners West country yokels Generic angry northerner Unintelligible Liverpudlian Bullish Brummie Scottish (if they are lucky 2 variants) Welsh And 'Are you from the Republic of Ireland'?
Frankly Birmingham is lucky to get in there, never mind others.
Surely generic Geordie / Cheryl Cole / Billy Elliott should feature in that list as a distinct popular culture species.
Billy Elliott isn't a Geordie. Also Lancashire / Yorkshire are very distinct. Southerners can't always tell. But if you are from either they have some howling dissimilarities. Double o pronunciation for a start.
Er, wasn't the point of the original post supposed to be generic stereotype accents rather than a nuanced selection of actual accents?
It was?? OK. In my defence I've got my first head cold for 18 months. Everything seems muffled, and a little unreal.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
The only reason to get a plug-in hybrid ICE, is if you’re running as a company car in your own business, thanks to various tax incentives.
If that’s not you, they make very little sense at all, worst of both worlds.
I'm on my 2nd Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. For £20k I got a 2 year old car that can take me and a mountain of stuff up and down the country in serene comfort. It runs on batteries most of the time up here on local trips, does mid 40s MPG on a long trip and once you've driven a car without a gearbox you don't want to have to go back to one.
Point is that this is my personal vehicle, not a company car. I need ground clearance and 4wd is helpful up here, I've repeatedly loaded it to the roofline on tip runs. Its significantly cheaper to run than a diesel, is a lot cleaner, and there's a lot less mechanical stuff to go wrong.
I'll go full EV once a similar car at a similar price becomes available...
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
Li-ion battery life is tightly tied to the number of cycles, the depth of the cycle and the temperature excursions experienced by the battery.
Water cooled batteries made a massive difference.
Tesla battery warranty Model 3 Standard Range 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
Li-Ion electronics have got a lot smarter in the past few years at maintaining battery life. In principle the cars being sold now should pack up before their batteries.
Warranties like the above are specced to be easily met.
People bothered to read Starmer's 14,000 word blank sheet of paper? More fool them.
It's 14,000 words long - who has time to write that much and more importantly what audience does he think has the time and willingness to read all of it.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
Re electric cars: the non-battery parts will last a lot, lot longer than a traditional ICE. There aren't tens of thousands of little explosions happening. There isn't the same thermal expansion and contraction of metal components, constantly weakening them. There's dramatically less wear of brake pads.
Ultimately, motors, brakes, and normal car functions, will last a lot longer in an electric vehicle than a petrol powered one.
However (and it's a big however), that is not true of batteries.
Every charge, discharge cycle reduces the capacity of a battery a little bit. After you've had an electric car for two or three years, you might notice that instead of getting 240 miles per charge, you're now only getting 220. (Vendors other than Tesla avoid this somewhat by overspeccing the batteries, and showing you a fake low range for the first two years or so.)
The question is, what's the useful life of a battery, and how does that affect the long-term maintenance costs, given the battery is going to be the most expensive part of the vehicle. And given, too, that most people won't want to put a new £10,000 battery into a car whose other parts have deprectiated to - say - £3,000.
Well...
The general industry view is that you keep battery capacity loss to acceptable levels (20%) for about 65,000 miles / 8 years. We don't know yet if that's true, because few electric cars have run that long.
But there is some good news. Those 80-85% capacity batteries still have a lot of value. You might not want them in your car, because the storage-to-weight equation doesn't work. But in other areas, like uninterruptable power supplies, it's simply no big deal.
I have a friend here in the US with a business that buys up used electric cars from second hand auctions, removes the battery and retrieves the 18650 cells from them. They're then tested and sorted and sold on. He reckons he's currently making around a 50% return on every car he purchases, and his biggest problem is getting labour in Las Vegas to work stripping down the car and batteries.
In the long run, my friend's business won't exist. Car companies aren't going to leave that money on the table. Let's say that a battery pack is $10,000 for a Tesla Model 3. And let's say that at 80% capacity, it's worth $5,000. This means that you have $5,000 of cost amortized over 50,000 miles. That's about 10 cents per mile of implied battery depreciation. Not nothing by any means. But also not that much when one considers the other maintenance savings.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
Li-ion battery life is tightly tied to the number of cycles, the depth of the cycle and the temperature excursions experienced by the battery.
Water cooled batteries made a massive difference.
Tesla battery warranty Model 3 Standard Range 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
Li-Ion electronics have got a lot smarter in the past few years at maintaining battery life. In principle the cars being sold now should pack up before their batteries.
Warranties like the above are specced to be easily met.
Yes, because Tesla is always sooooo conservative with their claims...
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
It is a shame that nobody has worked out a way to build an electric car where the batteries can just be swapped out quickly. It would solve both the charging problems (pull up, swap battery, drive off, charge later using the cheapest electricity available) and the battery lifetime problems.
I understand why - it is safer to build it as part of the vehicle structure, and different car designs need different battery shapes - but maybe there is a way. If only they could be smaller.
That should be how electric trucks end up working, some sort of battery swap lease service.
The packaging is simply too tight, and weight-critical. to do it with cars.
That sounds like Better Place's business model (although that business was well before it's natural time).
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
The only reason to get a plug-in hybrid ICE, is if you’re running as a company car in your own business, thanks to various tax incentives.
If that’s not you, they make very little sense at all, worst of both worlds.
I'm on my 2nd Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. For £20k I got a 2 year old car that can take me and a mountain of stuff up and down the country in serene comfort. It runs on batteries most of the time up here on local trips, does mid 40s MPG on a long trip and once you've driven a car without a gearbox you don't want to have to go back to one.
Point is that this is my personal vehicle, not a company car. I need ground clearance and 4wd is helpful up here, I've repeatedly loaded it to the roofline on tip runs. Its significantly cheaper to run than a diesel, is a lot cleaner, and there's a lot less mechanical stuff to go wrong.
I'll go full EV once a similar car at a similar price becomes available...
Two years then. Same as me, in the meantime a Golf GTE getting 300 mpg (I only do local trips) will do me fine.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
The only reason to get a plug-in hybrid ICE, is if you’re running as a company car in your own business, thanks to various tax incentives.
If that’s not you, they make very little sense at all, worst of both worlds.
I'm on my 2nd Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. For £20k I got a 2 year old car that can take me and a mountain of stuff up and down the country in serene comfort. It runs on batteries most of the time up here on local trips, does mid 40s MPG on a long trip and once you've driven a car without a gearbox you don't want to have to go back to one.
Point is that this is my personal vehicle, not a company car. I need ground clearance and 4wd is helpful up here, I've repeatedly loaded it to the roofline on tip runs. Its significantly cheaper to run than a diesel, is a lot cleaner, and there's a lot less mechanical stuff to go wrong.
I'll go full EV once a similar car at a similar price becomes available...
Ah, the exception that proves the rule!
I’ll disagree that they are less mechanically complex than a diesel one though, they have two powertrains, and in time will need two lots of maintainance.
Starmer's statement is poor, and I think he's being badly advised.
I thought he may be able to find a new vocabulary, equivalent to a kind of updated Wilsonism, but that statement says nothing new, and is as dated as Tony Blair's first conference speech.
I'm also beginning to think Rayner may be able to find a more distinctive vocabulary.
I have heard the rumours Starmer is thinking of standing down and is that really a possibility, and that his reason for attempting to change the rules of accession before he does
I think Starmer is labour's best choice just now
Why would you spend all summer writing a massive essay if you planned to stand down?
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
It is a shame that nobody has worked out a way to build an electric car where the batteries can just be swapped out quickly. It would solve both the charging problems (pull up, swap battery, drive off, charge later using the cheapest electricity available) and the battery lifetime problems.
I understand why - it is safer to build it as part of the vehicle structure, and different car designs need different battery shapes - but maybe there is a way. If only they could be smaller.
That should be how electric trucks end up working, some sort of battery swap lease service.
The packaging is simply too tight, and weight-critical. to do it with cars.
That sounds like Better Place's business model (although that business was well before it's natural time).
It works if the batteries are leased, it doesn't work if the batteries are owned - so I can see it being practical for Lorries and not for cars.
Mind you for Lorries I hope JCB's hydrogen engines take off.
On the future plans for leased batteries, Renault are the ones to watch as they have been doing it for a decade.
Current battery warranties are around 8 years / 100k miles to maintain 60-75% of capacity.
The problem with lease batteries is that you are swapping monthly petrol cost for a battery rental payment. At which point petrol makes a lot more sense for my current type of journeys.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
People bothered to read Starmer's 14,000 word blank sheet of paper? More fool them.
It's 14,000 words long - who has time to write that much and more importantly what audience does he think has the time and willingness to read all of it.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
It's like one of those crazy people anarchist manifestoes.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
One of those e-scooters would be perfect for my 3-4 mile commute. I even wanted one before covid hit but my wife said no as it wasnt legal.
I think that needs changing. I can ride a pedal bike faster than their maximum speed.
Now they are saying we only need to work 20% of time in the office so the bus is fine for that.
I'm all for electric scooters being banned, or at least regulated. The way kids ride them around here is fairly shocking; far faster than the kids on bikes, and on and off the pavement, down the middle of the road, etc.
In Milton a week or so ago, I saw a couple of lads on a scooter. Wearing dark clothes, in the dark, obviously pi**ed out their minds, weaving all around the road.
Ok. Maybe make them only legal once you have passed your driving test. And get points on your license if you break the rules on them.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
It is a shame that nobody has worked out a way to build an electric car where the batteries can just be swapped out quickly. It would solve both the charging problems (pull up, swap battery, drive off, charge later using the cheapest electricity available) and the battery lifetime problems.
I understand why - it is safer to build it as part of the vehicle structure, and different car designs need different battery shapes - but maybe there is a way. If only they could be smaller.
My understanding of battery technology is limited, but I thought that effectively most large batteries were large numbers of smaller batteries put together. So, in principle, it would be possible to have parts of the battery built into the structure and a proportion (25% or so) built to a standard specification and easily accessible for quick replacement.
The more serious problem is that they are so valuable, and degrade over time, so that it would be a bit like problems with debased coinage. You might be swapping in a fully-charged battery pack, but would the battery be in as good condition?
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, ché la diritta via era smarrita
Smarten up guys
L'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle!
I had an author acquaintance who borrowed this as the preface to his first book, which itself had some pretty poorly disguised references to his work colleagues, and I mean Agent McGee from NCIS level of disguise. And loads of pornographic situations to boot.
Fortunately, I was embodied in the Godot like Mancunian character* and, not appearing, was spared seven shades of literary spit-roasting.
* my non appearance stemmed from the fact that he didn't get to line manage me as he had expected.
People bothered to read Starmer's 14,000 word blank sheet of paper? More fool them.
It's 14,000 words long - who has time to write that much and more importantly what audience does he think has the time and willingness to read all of it.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
Starmer is being interviewed by Marr on Sunday and it looks as if he is in for a difficult time
People do not want 14,000 words, they want simple clear and costed policies relevant to them
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
She would be a total inspiration.
Yes, but why would a billionaire want to dirty herself with politics?
Doubly so, given what happened to her when she voiced an opinion on a politically-divisive issue once before.
Unfortunately for Rayner I think a Northern woman with a tendency to being aggressive in PMQs would play into a classist-sexist stereotype that would go down badly with the public.
Strictly speaking, all of that applied to Margaret Thatcher as well.
The only difference was she lost the accent.
Grantham is in the East Midlands.
North from my point of view - clearly above Birmingham and the Severn-Wash line!
Lincolnshire is the only county which in part feels northern, midland and southern.
Scunthorpe and Grimsby: clearly northern. The names, most of all. Uncompromisingly viking. And the accents. And the nearest big cities - Leeds and Sheffield. A Yorkshireman would quibble, of course, but they'd quibble with everything. And all northerners think the north starts 10 miles south of where they were born. Lincoln, Grantham and Skegness: clearly midland. In the outer orbit of Nottingham and Leicester. And again, the accents: midlands. Stamford: the south. In the far edges of London commuterland. And you could be in the Cotswolds if it wasn't so flat.
Also, Holbeach: clearly East Anglia.
Lincoln itself - the city - is very hard to define. It's quite far north but in places it feels distinctly southern; it's quite far east but doesn't really feel "East Anglian"
The long walk up to the cathedral on a scented, drizzly dusk in midwinter is sublime, creepy and poetic
The River Witham below Lincoln Cathedral flows through a gap in the Lincolnshire Limestone created during the ice age.
East of this gap was a huge glacial lake which eventually became the Fens, North West of the gap was another glacial lake which filled the Vale of York, and South West of the gap was the Trent, which drains most of what we now call the East Midlands.
So if you go far enough back, Lincoln is literally the meeting point of North, East and Midlands.
It is interesting how these divisions persist based on a long lost landscape.
Fascinating!
One reason Lincoln feels southern is the hill, and the lushness of that river, which makes it all feel more like somewhere in Dorset or Somerset or Herefordshire
I love the sensory borders we have in this country and others. Herefordshire and the marches are a good example: Herefordshire is clearly Southern. So, just about, is South Shropshire up to Clun and Ludlow. Beyond that though and it becomes very obviously the Midlands, including the climate, the deep red bricks and the industry.
Then somewhere halfway across Hampshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire we very noticeably transition from the South East to the West Country. The accent changes, the countryside and place names too, and the weather becomes softer.
My favourites though are in France as you drive down the autoroutes. At Laon we lose the Flemish air of Pas de Calais and are clearly in proper France, then at Troyes the building stones change, the forests start and we're in Central France. At Macon another sensory border as the steep pitched roofs give way to Roman canal tiles and cypresses and swimming pools start to appear - we are in the Southern half of the country, just like when you drive through the Vendee into Charente. Finally, just South of Montelimar the midi starts abruptly, literally one ridge and the climate and vegetation are Mediterranean. That must be one of the most abrupt and comprehensive changes within one country.
Yes, so true, I am mildly obsessed with borders, regional, national, cultural
I love trying to spot, somewhere south of Lyon, where it is that you suddenly hit Provence and the Midi sun. It is an abrupt change, as you say
Another one is the transition to the Scottish Highlands from the Lowlands.
One of my faves is the shift from German middle Europe to Italian southern Europe about 30 miles south of the Brenner Pass
That's a rubbish take because most Pharma in the UK pay well below the headline rate due to stuff like Patent Box. Ireland actually does have a reasonably good pharma industry and I expect AZ would have a multi-year recruitment issue in the UK even with skilled visas. The cost of keeping someone employed will be about double in the UK vs Ireland and they don't need to build a skills base from scratch there.
TBF, it's usually a bit more complicated than that. (Speaking as an ex-CFO), the best way to minimise your tax bill is to - as much as possible - make sure you have similar costs and revenues in each jurisdiction. Because if you can do that, then the tax rate doesn't matter so much - because you're declaring zero profit.
AstraZeneca already has lots of costs in the UK, specifically lots of R&D work. If they put more costs into the UK, it might tip their UK operations into loss, which wouldn't do them any good at all.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
The only reason to get a plug-in hybrid ICE, is if you’re running as a company car in your own business, thanks to various tax incentives.
If that’s not you, they make very little sense at all, worst of both worlds.
I'm on my 2nd Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. For £20k I got a 2 year old car that can take me and a mountain of stuff up and down the country in serene comfort. It runs on batteries most of the time up here on local trips, does mid 40s MPG on a long trip and once you've driven a car without a gearbox you don't want to have to go back to one.
Point is that this is my personal vehicle, not a company car. I need ground clearance and 4wd is helpful up here, I've repeatedly loaded it to the roofline on tip runs. Its significantly cheaper to run than a diesel, is a lot cleaner, and there's a lot less mechanical stuff to go wrong.
I'll go full EV once a similar car at a similar price becomes available...
Ah, the exception that proves the rule!
I’ll disagree that they are less mechanically complex than a diesel one though, they have two powertrains, and in time will need two lots of maintainance.
The slightly more logical version I can see is the electric powertrain with diesel (or petrol) generator only. But that presumably needs a much more substantial battery than a PHEV to deliver peak demand (or a generator similar in size to a standard ICE to deliver equivalent peak power - maybe bigger, depending on the losses in each process).
That's a rubbish take because most Pharma in the UK pay well below the headline rate due to stuff like Patent Box. Ireland actually does have a reasonably good pharma industry and I expect AZ would have a multi-year recruitment issue in the UK even with skilled visas. The cost of keeping someone employed will be about double in the UK vs Ireland and they don't need to build a skills base from scratch there.
Pharma manufacturing is usually not that hard, once initial ramp up has been done.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
That would how much of your £1000 or so a year on fuel for say 4 years I get to add to my purchase price
Anyhoo, we are nearly there on this now.
I think governments will find a way to make electric car owners pay for road usage to fill the hole left by fuel duty.
In this case you can either go with the warranty or the data accumulated by various third party organisations for the degradation rate of of Li-ion batteries in cars (mostly Teslas).
It is utterly unsurprising that the warranty is well inside the expected battery life.
I read it. There were probably half a dozen small bits of policy in it, some criminal justice changes, replacing UC, but no big 5 'here is what we would do'.
It really was 'here is the basis on which we will, in future, make policies'. A light sketch, not yet coloured in.
Now, I won't particularly need, haven't needed, a great surfeit of lustre on a leader to vote Labour, especially against this lot. I do need them not to be terrorist sympathisers. But, I'm not the only voter, so it matters.
A Liz Kendall, for instance, would have written something far more compelling. (I know we're not going that way, just making a comparison with someone who would have aced this particular step on the road).
The plan is very clearly to proceed step by deliberate step, becoming more specific, outward-looking and compelling as the election approaches. I don't agree it's the best plan, but I'm clear that's what he's doing.
I'm guessing this film (if it ever comes to pass) will not be a moving tribute to the personal struggles of the Biden family.
I saw a total sick-bucket of a twitter exchange the other day:
Lozza (for it was he) to Neil Oliver (for it was he too): "We're going to need you this winter."
(to stand for freedom in the face of ... well in the face of something)
Oliver: "I'LL BE THERE."
Slight vomity taste in the back of my mouth just reading that. It's odd how so many of these clear eyed, tough guys of the right take a break from cutting through woke bs by engaging in these clinches with each other. The idea that they're part of some heroic, persecuted band is very strong juice for them.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
The only reason to get a plug-in hybrid ICE, is if you’re running as a company car in your own business, thanks to various tax incentives.
If that’s not you, they make very little sense at all, worst of both worlds.
I'm on my 2nd Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. For £20k I got a 2 year old car that can take me and a mountain of stuff up and down the country in serene comfort. It runs on batteries most of the time up here on local trips, does mid 40s MPG on a long trip and once you've driven a car without a gearbox you don't want to have to go back to one.
Point is that this is my personal vehicle, not a company car. I need ground clearance and 4wd is helpful up here, I've repeatedly loaded it to the roofline on tip runs. Its significantly cheaper to run than a diesel, is a lot cleaner, and there's a lot less mechanical stuff to go wrong.
I'll go full EV once a similar car at a similar price becomes available...
Ah, the exception that proves the rule!
I’ll disagree that they are less mechanically complex than a diesel one though, they have two powertrains, and in time will need two lots of maintainance.
Lets think about it then. I've got a petrol engine which runs only part the time and then often runs in the sweet spot where its mechanically less stressed. No turbocharger. A clutch that only engages above 45mph (so very very few times vs any other clutch in an actual gearbox). Brakes that don't get used half the time.
I've driven cars that have felt like a ticking timebomb. The engine has so many weak points. The gearbox needs tender loving care. This isn't one of those.
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
Plus another £5000 for the new batteries you will need to drive it off the forecourt.
Yep, cheapo second (or third etc) hand electric cars are not really viable at the moment.
But if we have new ICEs potentially until 2030 or so, then cheapo second hand electric cars won't be needed until the late 2030s (as there will still be plenty of cheapo second hand ICEs).
If ICEs disappear sooner, then it will be because the electric tech has come on more quickly and there will then be cheapo second hand electrics that are viable earlier than late 2030s too.
And, the 2030 ban doesn't apply to hybrids, I think? So worst case, if there are still issues by then you buy, in late 2030s, a ropey old hybrid with a useless battery and drive it as an ICE (although given the batteries in hybrids are much smaller, probably no big cost to replace those anyway).
TLDR: Electrics will only replace ICEs when they're a better all-round option, including in the second hand market (ohterwise people will baulk at the depreciation).
As you suggest hybrid ICE is a waste of time. I was all set on a 2018 Mercedes c300h (PHEV) earlier in the year. MB reckoned 30 mile battery range, owner reviews said 20 was wildly optimistic. Instead I got a 2019 BMW 320d ED which is giving me a phenomenal 60mpg average.
That depends quite heavily on journey mix.
If you can charge at home and do a lot of your journeys electrically it makes sense.
Also obvs 4x4 suits anyone living in the sticks.
Personally I am on a big estate which will tow 2 tons, and cost me 26k new (reduced from 36k) for a Euro 6 diesel, and does 60mpg too. The plan is to keep it as my last ICE car, except for a low mileage lightweight fun wagon.
I need an electric that will also tow 2 tons. Not here yet, except for vanity prices.
For what it is worth, my gut feeling is that Angela Rayner would raise moral amongst some (many?) labour supporters but would do worse than Starmer at a GE.
I skim-read Starmer's essay. It's a bit of a curate's egg. I think it needs more distinctive content to cut through with the media and the public. Interestingly, the bit where he outlined some actual ideas for improving the country, section 4, was the best bit. The last section was poor though, and the ten bullet points at the end are just instantly forgettable motherhood and apple pie stuff. I think Labour need a small number of distinctive policies and a clear attack line against the government. It's probably too early for the former though - any ideas that are too good will just get nicked by the government.
Does anyone think this energy crisis could bring down the government?
I think they’re gonna have to ditch the cap. Even if they don’t, it’s looking quite possible average energy bills will rise to ~£1800 from April. For many people that will be almost double.
Hard not to see some political spillover.
Especially when it clashes with the COP26 rhetoric. It’s a head on smash between the Carrie wing of the Tory party and the red wall voters.
At some point soon, it’s going to hit that climate change mitigation comes with huge costs for the average person.
I already have nightmares of driving off while the car's still plugged in - And I haven't bought one yet!
I think the looming political problem is the increased cost of motoring. A lot of people rely on old petrol cars for cheap motoring. They cost almost nothing. By way of example, the total depreciation on my last car was £1700 over 4 years. There were no other costs at all, aside from annual servicing and MOT (£150), along with Insurance and petrol, but it did 40 mpg.
New cars, including electric cars, essentially cost at least £200 per month. They don't last the way that older petrol vehicles do due to the complicated tech and particularly battery life. If old cars are taxed and regulated out of existence, that is going to be a disaster for poor people.
Let them use bikes.
Secondhand electrical cars start at about £3000 at present.
I just paid £3,500 for a 2005 Mercedes E500. With a V8 and a big boot. How much does an EV of similar size and performance cost?
Yes, its going to be a massive problem for governments, millions of people with old cars rely on them for work, and don’t have somewhere dedicated to park at home. They’re nurses and warehouse workers.
Oh, and the £40bn ish of fuel duty and road tax.
I am not an expert, but my suspicion is that EV's are designed with a 7 year design life. They are leased, rather than sold, so resale values are of less significance. The whole business model of manufacturers has changed. Beyond around 7 years they seem essentially become uneconomic to keep running so they effectively go to be recycled.
The problem with a £3000 used electric car, if one exists; it would quickly become uneconomic to repair. The contrast with a low mileage ICE vehicle is significant; the latter can keep running indefinetly if it maintained.
As someone who cycles everywhere I support a societal shift to a shift to bikes or low maintainence battery scooters, but unfortunately it isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. Long distance travel is not feasible using such vehicles. And it poses the question of why can't the rich also make such a shift; after all a 1.5 ton lump of metal with a huge battery that only lasts for 7 years also has quite significant environmental consequences.
There are certainly old (2013) Teslas being written off with battery issues, and a replacement is £20k or thereabouts. There’s also stories of them being used as taxis and running up 300,000 miles. Both of these can of course be true, and it may be that age is more of a factor than mileage in determining vehicle life.
We’ll find out in the next few years!
Since there's much fewer moving parts (I believe) it could possibly even be that it's better suited for more mileage than less.
Ie if it's constantly moving like a taxi then it stays operational but if it's idle on the driveway days at a time then it's less so.
Not saying it's the case but it's a possibility.
With batteries, I can see the way it's being driven and charged mattering more than actual kwh usage. For instance, continuously gunning it down the road might harm the batteries more than the same energy used more gently. Ditto charging: fast charging may be worse (or potentially better) than trickle charging.
The recent stories about the cost of replacing Tesla batteries are frankly scary.
It is a shame that nobody has worked out a way to build an electric car where the batteries can just be swapped out quickly. It would solve both the charging problems (pull up, swap battery, drive off, charge later using the cheapest electricity available) and the battery lifetime problems.
I understand why - it is safer to build it as part of the vehicle structure, and different car designs need different battery shapes - but maybe there is a way. If only they could be smaller.
My understanding of battery technology is limited, but I thought that effectively most large batteries were large numbers of smaller batteries put together. So, in principle, it would be possible to have parts of the battery built into the structure and a proportion (25% or so) built to a standard specification and easily accessible for quick replacement.
The more serious problem is that they are so valuable, and degrade over time, so that it would be a bit like problems with debased coinage. You might be swapping in a fully-charged battery pack, but would the battery be in as good condition?
When TaaS is mainstream, it won’t really matter because the car producers will likely retain ownership of their fleet. That said, I suspect it will still be easier to fast charge than manage the complexity of swapping in and out.
The trick that Tesla are starting to pull is employing battery storage at the fast charging stations. Retail consumers of power get charged by the kWh. Large commercial consumers also get charged by the kW (or rather MW). And that can be smoothed out with on site storage, by drawing power during troughs of demand and even selling back in peaks if not used by charging vehicles.
And as has been said, there is going to be a rolling cascade of cheap storage batteries hitting the market as the high density batteries in EVs reach a less useful energy density. Exciting times.
People bothered to read Starmer's 14,000 word blank sheet of paper? More fool them.
It's 14,000 words long - who has time to write that much and more importantly what audience does he think has the time and willingness to read all of it.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
Starmer is being interviewed by Marr on Sunday and it looks as if he is in for a difficult time
People do not want 14,000 words, they want simple clear and costed policies relevant to them
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
She would be a total inspiration.
Actually, with the exception of the trans/TERF issue that she's become embroiled in, I believe J K Rowling is pretty much on the woke end of the spectrum isn't she?
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
She would be a total inspiration.
Yes, but why would a billionaire want to dirty herself with politics?
Doubly so, given what happened to her when she voiced an opinion on a politically-divisive issue once before.
I dunno. Bloomberg? Trump if we count him as a billionaire?
Probably she wouldn’t. Which is what makes her even more appealing.
People bothered to read Starmer's 14,000 word blank sheet of paper? More fool them.
It's 14,000 words long - who has time to write that much and more importantly what audience does he think has the time and willingness to read all of it.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
It's like one of those crazy people anarchist manifestoes.
Is it? Sounds much more interesting than I thought - maybe I should read it afterall?
That's a rubbish take because most Pharma in the UK pay well below the headline rate due to stuff like Patent Box. Ireland actually does have a reasonably good pharma industry and I expect AZ would have a multi-year recruitment issue in the UK even with skilled visas. The cost of keeping someone employed will be about double in the UK vs Ireland and they don't need to build a skills base from scratch there.
Are there EU market access things involved here?
I note that the same article mentions a 25% bigger investment in the North-West of England.
I just filled my tank (as the light was on) and the petrol station was quiet and the fuel was cheaper than it was last time I filled up a couple of weeks ago. Still pricy but cheaper, £131.9
No sign of panic buying.
Wait until the weekend before which the Joel Hills exclusive will have filtered through the news cycle.
We'll need some classic Boris Johnson comedy charisma to keep us laughing.
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
You're quite wrong. I read it with an open mind, yes I expected to be bored - because he is boring - but that's a good mindset (from Starmer's perspective). He didn't have to do much to surprise on the upside, and make me think Hmm, perhaps he has hidden qualities. Or Wow that's quite a clever policy. Or Hah he's got a sense of humour after all. Anything
Yet he still managed to disappoint. It was even duller and more inane than I anticipated
You can disbelieve me if you like, but then you are deceiving yourself, and that's not good
I hope we have all read Starmer's magnum opus....i wonder who other than himself have read it cover to cover.
There should be a circle in Dante's Purgatory where the daily punishment is "read 15,000 words by Keir Starmer" - again and again and again
You can't really say this until you've read it, which you haven't. Nor have I but I'm about to. Once I have I'll give my honest opinion of it. But not before.
You said you were about to read it hours ago. Have you not been able to summon up the will to get started?
OK i just took the plunge and had a look at the Keir Starmer meisterwerk
On the very first page it says "people in this country are crying out for change"
I mean, really? REALLY? Does Sir Kir Royale think this is a startling and exciting new idea, phrased in a way that captures the heart?
Or did it not cross his desiccated mind that this is a thumping great cliche, so wearily overused it causes physical pain to the reader?
The rest of the essay is in similar style. Banality after banality, well meaning guff expressed with earnest mundanity. It is the Labour leader captured on the page. I could not find a single uplifting phrase that made me think.
I don't like being this mean. Starmer obviously has good intention, is clearly decent and kind, but Jeez. If this is the way he writes he should have hired a writer.
Yep. The piece is far too long, dull, and banal. There's really nothing there of substance to disagree with - who doesn't want better public services, better jobs, reduced crime? - but it doesn't begin to address the question of how Labour would seek to improve things. Take out the (excessive) ritual Tory-bashing, and the whole 35-page piece really amounts to nothing more than an aspiration to Boris Johnson's rather more pithy 'levelling up', and it is equally vacuous.
Indeed. The essay in its length and emptiness has actually made things worse. You read it and you think: wait, is this all there is? Is this Starmer the man? Does he not have a single interesting new idea? It reminds me me Gertrude Stein's withering putdown of Oakland, her boring home-town - "there's no there, there"
At least Boris is entertaining, etc etc. Also I can't see Starmer having the audacity to bring off a foreign policy coup like Aukus
Starmer has revealed himself and the revelation is a void
To be fair to Starmer, I do like the opening line of his essay: In the middle of the journey of our movements life we find ourselves within a dark wood where the left way is lost.
The only good bit of the Starmer essay is the ending
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
That is unexpectedly deft, I will admit, otherwise it is all cliche
Am catching up with thread so someone has probably already posted, but that’s the Great Gatsby I think.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
She would be a total inspiration.
Actually, with the exception of the trans/TERF issue that she's become embroiled in, I believe J K Rowling is pretty much on the woke end of the spectrum isn't she?
That she is willing to speak out so loudly on the day’s defining dividing line within the left tells you what you need to. She believes not only in free expression but common sense. Sure, she might hold social views broadly consistent with much of the guardian editorial board. But that’s because she’s a lefty. You can’t have Lozza Fox as Labour leader after all.
I hope we have all read Starmer's magnum opus....i wonder who other than himself have read it cover to cover.
There should be a circle in Dante's Purgatory where the daily punishment is "read 15,000 words by Keir Starmer" - again and again and again
You can't really say this until you've read it, which you haven't. Nor have I but I'm about to. Once I have I'll give my honest opinion of it. But not before.
You said you were about to read it hours ago. Have you not been able to summon up the will to get started?
OK i just took the plunge and had a look at the Keir Starmer meisterwerk
On the very first page it says "people in this country are crying out for change"
I mean, really? REALLY? Does Sir Kir Royale think this is a startling and exciting new idea, phrased in a way that captures the heart?
Or did it not cross his desiccated mind that this is a thumping great cliche, so wearily overused it causes physical pain to the reader?
The rest of the essay is in similar style. Banality after banality, well meaning guff expressed with earnest mundanity. It is the Labour leader captured on the page. I could not find a single uplifting phrase that made me think.
I don't like being this mean. Starmer obviously has good intention, is clearly decent and kind, but Jeez. If this is the way he writes he should have hired a writer.
Yep. The piece is far too long, dull, and banal. There's really nothing there of substance to disagree with - who doesn't want better public services, better jobs, reduced crime? - but it doesn't begin to address the question of how Labour would seek to improve things. Take out the (excessive) ritual Tory-bashing, and the whole 35-page piece really amounts to nothing more than an aspiration to Boris Johnson's rather more pithy 'levelling up', and it is equally vacuous.
Indeed. The essay in its length and emptiness has actually made things worse. You read it and you think: wait, is this all there is? Is this Starmer the man? Does he not have a single interesting new idea? It reminds me me Gertrude Stein's withering putdown of Oakland, her boring home-town - "there's no there, there"
At least Boris is entertaining, etc etc. Also I can't see Starmer having the audacity to bring off a foreign policy coup like Aukus
Starmer has revealed himself and the revelation is a void
To be fair to Starmer, I do like the opening line of his essay: In the middle of the journey of our movements life we find ourselves within a dark wood where the left way is lost.
The only good bit of the Starmer essay is the ending
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
That is unexpectedly deft, I will admit, otherwise it is all cliche
Am catching up with thread so someone has probably already posted, but that’s the Great Gatsby I think.
I have just listened to one of the climate change zealots on Sky and there is no quarter or reasoning with them
COP26 is seeking a 100 billion a year commitment which he considers is chicken feed demanding more than a trillion
His argument is that the world has spent billions on covid, so they can easily afford the trillions needed for climate change
He trashed the idea of electric cars and demanded public transport everywhere to virtually abolish the car
Zealots like him are doing enormous damage to their cause with these utterly unrealistic demands that no western government could accept if it wanted to stay in power
I am concerned that all the presenters seem to do is to listen to their extraordinary demands and say thank you for your interview
Not one question or attempt to put them on the spot, just simply allowing their views to go unchallenged
And yet these same zealots who are quick to attack the west but never have a bad word for China or Russia
This narrative has to be challenged
Yet who dares challenge the new religious orthodoxy? The extinction rebellion and insulate UK motorway disruptors are like the ranters in the English Civil War. Meanwhile the mainstream eco religion has church fathers (Attenborough) and child saints (Greta) and the civil arm is enforcing penance and mortification of the flesh on us sinners.
People bothered to read Starmer's 14,000 word blank sheet of paper? More fool them.
It's 14,000 words long - who has time to write that much and more importantly what audience does he think has the time and willingness to read all of it.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
Starmer is being interviewed by Marr on Sunday and it looks as if he is in for a difficult time
People do not want 14,000 words, they want simple clear and costed policies relevant to them
Well, the 2019 Conservative Manifesto was 64 pages long, I'd guess about 60,000 words. Nobody read that either.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
Just in terms of media coverage, Dan Jarvis has been pretty mediocre as Mayor of Greater Sheffield.
Does anyone have closer insight?
I think the killer for him as a prospective Lab leader would be that without his back story Jarvis would be nowhere. I think the UK & associated commentariat tend to get a bit over-excited by pols who are ex military then realises their mistake when they find out more. I can remember PBers swooning over Johnny Mercer...
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
But by all accounts there's nothing said in the 14,000 words. Even if there is, who the hell has got time to read it. My master's thesis was only about 25k words and that was a culmination of 4 years of university.
If you can't see that 14,000 words is excessive then it's you that has got the issue, not us. I've got an open mind for Labour, but not enough to waste my time reading 14,000 words of what appears to be a long winded way of saying nothing at all.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
She would be a total inspiration.
This is actually rather a good idea.
Quite apart from her probable reluctance to take on a terrible job when she is already a globally beloved billionaire, she would rile half the party to frothing hatred, with her position on trans rights
Which goes to show the scale of Labour's Woke Problem
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Labour need JK Rowling as leader. Self made from nothing. Anti woke. Articulate, intelligent and human. An authentic northerner but who feels wholly and roundly British. A compassionate socialist who would inspire rather than scare Middle England.
She would be a total inspiration.
Actually, with the exception of the trans/TERF issue that she's become embroiled in, I believe J K Rowling is pretty much on the woke end of the spectrum isn't she?
That she is willing to speak out so loudly on the day’s defining dividing line within the left tells you what you need to. She believes not only in free expression but common sense. Sure, she might hold social views broadly consistent with much of the guardian editorial board. But that’s because she’s a lefty. You can’t have Lozza Fox as Labour leader after all.
Yes, I was merely pointing out that she's not anti-woke. She isn't, as you seem to agree - I think.
I read it. There were probably half a dozen small bits of policy in it, some criminal justice changes, replacing UC, but no big 5 'here is what we would do'.
It really was 'here is the basis on which we will, in future, make policies'. A light sketch, not yet coloured in.
Now, I won't particularly need, haven't needed, a great surfeit of lustre on a leader to vote Labour, especially against this lot. I do need them not to be terrorist sympathisers. But, I'm not the only voter, so it matters.
A Liz Kendall, for instance, would have written something far more compelling. (I know we're not going that way, just making a comparison with someone who would have aced this particular step on the road).
The plan is very clearly to proceed step by deliberate step, becoming more specific, outward-looking and compelling as the election approaches. I don't agree it's the best plan, but I'm clear that's what he's doing.
This is a keeper.
One to come back to in 2 years and 8 months when we can review just how "specific, outward-looking and compelling" he really got.
That's a rubbish take because most Pharma in the UK pay well below the headline rate due to stuff like Patent Box. Ireland actually does have a reasonably good pharma industry and I expect AZ would have a multi-year recruitment issue in the UK even with skilled visas. The cost of keeping someone employed will be about double in the UK vs Ireland and they don't need to build a skills base from scratch there.
Pharma manufacturing is usually not that hard, once initial ramp up has been done.
For sure, and that definitely feeds into the decision of why hire £70k per year chemical engineers in the UK when €40k ones in Ireland can do it.
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
But by all accounts there's nothing said in the 14,000 words. Even if there is, who the hell has got time to read it. My master's thesis was only about 25k words and that was a culmination of 4 years of university.
If you can't see that 14,000 words is excessive then it's you that has got the issue, not us. I've got an open mind for Labour, but not enough to waste my time reading 14,000 words of what appears to be a long winded way of saying nothing at all.
He is writing for the Fabian Society, to be fair, not The Sun. People who are into things like the FS probably don't mind reading 14,000 words. When it comes to addressing the public at large he will obviously be more direct.
That's a rubbish take because most Pharma in the UK pay well below the headline rate due to stuff like Patent Box. Ireland actually does have a reasonably good pharma industry and I expect AZ would have a multi-year recruitment issue in the UK even with skilled visas. The cost of keeping someone employed will be about double in the UK vs Ireland and they don't need to build a skills base from scratch there.
Pharma manufacturing is usually not that hard, once initial ramp up has been done.
For sure, and that definitely feeds into the decision of why hire £70k per year chemical engineers in the UK when €40k ones in Ireland can do it.
I can't imagine the pay difference is that much...
Unfortunately for Rayner I think a Northern woman with a tendency to being aggressive in PMQs would play into a classist-sexist stereotype that would go down badly with the public.
Strictly speaking, all of that applied to Margaret Thatcher as well.
The only difference was she lost the accent.
Grantham is in the East Midlands.
North from my point of view - clearly above Birmingham and the Severn-Wash line!
Lincolnshire is the only county which in part feels northern, midland and southern.
Scunthorpe and Grimsby: clearly northern. The names, most of all. Uncompromisingly viking. And the accents. And the nearest big cities - Leeds and Sheffield. A Yorkshireman would quibble, of course, but they'd quibble with everything. And all northerners think the north starts 10 miles south of where they were born. Lincoln, Grantham and Skegness: clearly midland. In the outer orbit of Nottingham and Leicester. And again, the accents: midlands. Stamford: the south. In the far edges of London commuterland. And you could be in the Cotswolds if it wasn't so flat.
Also, Holbeach: clearly East Anglia.
Lincoln itself - the city - is very hard to define. It's quite far north but in places it feels distinctly southern; it's quite far east but doesn't really feel "East Anglian"
The long walk up to the cathedral on a scented, drizzly dusk in midwinter is sublime, creepy and poetic
The River Witham below Lincoln Cathedral flows through a gap in the Lincolnshire Limestone created during the ice age.
East of this gap was a huge glacial lake which eventually became the Fens, North West of the gap was another glacial lake which filled the Vale of York, and South West of the gap was the Trent, which drains most of what we now call the East Midlands.
So if you go far enough back, Lincoln is literally the meeting point of North, East and Midlands.
It is interesting how these divisions persist based on a long lost landscape.
Fascinating!
One reason Lincoln feels southern is the hill, and the lushness of that river, which makes it all feel more like somewhere in Dorset or Somerset or Herefordshire
I love the sensory borders we have in this country and others. Herefordshire and the marches are a good example: Herefordshire is clearly Southern. So, just about, is South Shropshire up to Clun and Ludlow. Beyond that though and it becomes very obviously the Midlands, including the climate, the deep red bricks and the industry.
Then somewhere halfway across Hampshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire we very noticeably transition from the South East to the West Country. The accent changes, the countryside and place names too, and the weather becomes softer.
My favourites though are in France as you drive down the autoroutes. At Laon we lose the Flemish air of Pas de Calais and are clearly in proper France, then at Troyes the building stones change, the forests start and we're in Central France. At Macon another sensory border as the steep pitched roofs give way to Roman canal tiles and cypresses and swimming pools start to appear - we are in the Southern half of the country, just like when you drive through the Vendee into Charente. Finally, just South of Montelimar the midi starts abruptly, literally one ridge and the climate and vegetation are Mediterranean. That must be one of the most abrupt and comprehensive changes within one country.
Yes, so true, I am mildly obsessed with borders, regional, national, cultural
I love trying to spot, somewhere south of Lyon, where it is that you suddenly hit Provence and the Midi sun. It is an abrupt change, as you say
Another one is the transition to the Scottish Highlands from the Lowlands.
One of my faves is the shift from German middle Europe to Italian southern Europe about 30 miles south of the Brenner Pass
The precise place south of Lyon is officially the Donzere river gorge, just south of Montelimar. Partly climate but also a change in geology. The dominant forest species South of the gorge is Holm Oak.
I know we don't necessarily want a clown as PM, but I do think the complete absence of any light notes in Starmer's prose and demeanour makes it very hard for him to capture the imagination.
I hope we have all read Starmer's magnum opus....i wonder who other than himself have read it cover to cover.
There should be a circle in Dante's Purgatory where the daily punishment is "read 15,000 words by Keir Starmer" - again and again and again
You can't really say this until you've read it, which you haven't. Nor have I but I'm about to. Once I have I'll give my honest opinion of it. But not before.
You said you were about to read it hours ago. Have you not been able to summon up the will to get started?
OK i just took the plunge and had a look at the Keir Starmer meisterwerk
On the very first page it says "people in this country are crying out for change"
I mean, really? REALLY? Does Sir Kir Royale think this is a startling and exciting new idea, phrased in a way that captures the heart?
Or did it not cross his desiccated mind that this is a thumping great cliche, so wearily overused it causes physical pain to the reader?
The rest of the essay is in similar style. Banality after banality, well meaning guff expressed with earnest mundanity. It is the Labour leader captured on the page. I could not find a single uplifting phrase that made me think.
I don't like being this mean. Starmer obviously has good intention, is clearly decent and kind, but Jeez. If this is the way he writes he should have hired a writer.
Yep. The piece is far too long, dull, and banal. There's really nothing there of substance to disagree with - who doesn't want better public services, better jobs, reduced crime? - but it doesn't begin to address the question of how Labour would seek to improve things. Take out the (excessive) ritual Tory-bashing, and the whole 35-page piece really amounts to nothing more than an aspiration to Boris Johnson's rather more pithy 'levelling up', and it is equally vacuous.
Indeed. The essay in its length and emptiness has actually made things worse. You read it and you think: wait, is this all there is? Is this Starmer the man? Does he not have a single interesting new idea? It reminds me me Gertrude Stein's withering putdown of Oakland, her boring home-town - "there's no there, there"
At least Boris is entertaining, etc etc. Also I can't see Starmer having the audacity to bring off a foreign policy coup like Aukus
Starmer has revealed himself and the revelation is a void
To be fair to Starmer, I do like the opening line of his essay: In the middle of the journey of our movements life we find ourselves within a dark wood where the left way is lost.
The only good bit of the Starmer essay is the ending
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
That is unexpectedly deft, I will admit, otherwise it is all cliche
As predictable and cliched as Labours 1997 manifesto.
Why did so many Tory’s vote Labour in 1997?
Anyway, to keep the sly quoting we have going on here, somewhere around page 18 (maybe 118, I was nodding by then) of this weeks most famous essay, Starmer recalls his diary entry for 28th Feb - and this bit there some sit up, less cliched more cerebral tone, and probably Starmers failed leadership itself, all summed up in one paragraph, as nothing to dislike, but does it really excite?
clip-clop of hooves rattle of carriage, rhythmic sounds upon cobbles and down uneven lanes. The drove of people and livestock with filthy hum, had given way to stiller landscape, greener, with much less distracting odours. Puddles in and by the way revealed pours of the previous day; now and again, while owner wrought affairs, a hungry horse rested, the blessed dressed in nosebag or trough. The day passed by with winks of the eye, it was late afternoon of 28th of February as the carriage approached Greenfields. Between ellipse of seasonal verdure, grows a stern fascia, rising upward, challenging this sky with rich Gothic gravitas - a defiance to the ashen liberal and rich-blue republican of heaven. On cusp of evening, a scornful north breeze now arisen, misshaped shadows lengthen into impenetrable vegetation - while above in the winter sky line, a crescent moon all but set. The steed is affection for carrying you step by laborious reason, reigns still now on drive, business done. Perched upon arch with welcome trill, sparrow sings greeting, a picture of happiness in this domicile, if indeed her meaning...
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
But by all accounts there's nothing said in the 14,000 words. Even if there is, who the hell has got time to read it. My master's thesis was only about 25k words and that was a culmination of 4 years of university.
If you can't see that 14,000 words is excessive then it's you that has got the issue, not us. I've got an open mind for Labour, but not enough to waste my time reading 14,000 words of what appears to be a long winded way of saying nothing at all.
Okay, you admit you haven't read it, though then conclude it says nothing at all. You're quite right. It's a waste of time. Labour should follow the Boris route and seek to appeal to the base instincts of people who have the attention span of a gnat, in the modern soundbite world.
Just in terms of media coverage, Dan Jarvis has been pretty mediocre as Mayor of Greater Sheffield.
Does anyone have closer insight?
I think the killer for him as a prospective Lab leader would be that without his back story Jarvis would be nowhere. I think the UK & associated commentariat tend to get a bit over-excited by pols who are ex military then realises their mistake when they find out more. I can remember PBers swooning over Johnny Mercer...
The concept of Dan Jarvis is great. But there’s doesn’t seem to be much else.
Andy Burnham, Tracy Brabin and dare I say it Ben Houchen get some media attention.
Dan Jarvis and Andy Street; not so much.
Sadiq is not so much anonymous as actively awful. In fact, I think he’s got worse with every passing year in the mayoralty.
Unfortunately for Rayner I think a Northern woman with a tendency to being aggressive in PMQs would play into a classist-sexist stereotype that would go down badly with the public.
Strictly speaking, all of that applied to Margaret Thatcher as well.
The only difference was she lost the accent.
Grantham is in the East Midlands.
North from my point of view - clearly above Birmingham and the Severn-Wash line!
Lincolnshire is the only county which in part feels northern, midland and southern.
Scunthorpe and Grimsby: clearly northern. The names, most of all. Uncompromisingly viking. And the accents. And the nearest big cities - Leeds and Sheffield. A Yorkshireman would quibble, of course, but they'd quibble with everything. And all northerners think the north starts 10 miles south of where they were born. Lincoln, Grantham and Skegness: clearly midland. In the outer orbit of Nottingham and Leicester. And again, the accents: midlands. Stamford: the south. In the far edges of London commuterland. And you could be in the Cotswolds if it wasn't so flat.
Also, Holbeach: clearly East Anglia.
Lincoln itself - the city - is very hard to define. It's quite far north but in places it feels distinctly southern; it's quite far east but doesn't really feel "East Anglian"
The long walk up to the cathedral on a scented, drizzly dusk in midwinter is sublime, creepy and poetic
The River Witham below Lincoln Cathedral flows through a gap in the Lincolnshire Limestone created during the ice age.
East of this gap was a huge glacial lake which eventually became the Fens, North West of the gap was another glacial lake which filled the Vale of York, and South West of the gap was the Trent, which drains most of what we now call the East Midlands.
So if you go far enough back, Lincoln is literally the meeting point of North, East and Midlands.
It is interesting how these divisions persist based on a long lost landscape.
Fascinating!
One reason Lincoln feels southern is the hill, and the lushness of that river, which makes it all feel more like somewhere in Dorset or Somerset or Herefordshire
I love the sensory borders we have in this country and others. Herefordshire and the marches are a good example: Herefordshire is clearly Southern. So, just about, is South Shropshire up to Clun and Ludlow. Beyond that though and it becomes very obviously the Midlands, including the climate, the deep red bricks and the industry.
Then somewhere halfway across Hampshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire we very noticeably transition from the South East to the West Country. The accent changes, the countryside and place names too, and the weather becomes softer.
My favourites though are in France as you drive down the autoroutes. At Laon we lose the Flemish air of Pas de Calais and are clearly in proper France, then at Troyes the building stones change, the forests start and we're in Central France. At Macon another sensory border as the steep pitched roofs give way to Roman canal tiles and cypresses and swimming pools start to appear - we are in the Southern half of the country, just like when you drive through the Vendee into Charente. Finally, just South of Montelimar the midi starts abruptly, literally one ridge and the climate and vegetation are Mediterranean. That must be one of the most abrupt and comprehensive changes within one country.
Yes, so true, I am mildly obsessed with borders, regional, national, cultural
I love trying to spot, somewhere south of Lyon, where it is that you suddenly hit Provence and the Midi sun. It is an abrupt change, as you say
Another one is the transition to the Scottish Highlands from the Lowlands.
One of my faves is the shift from German middle Europe to Italian southern Europe about 30 miles south of the Brenner Pass
The precise place south of Lyon is officially the Donzere river gorge, just south of Montelimar. Partly climate but also a change in geology. The dominant forest species South of the gorge is Holm Oak.
Brilliant! Typical French Cartesian precision
I guess it must also depend on the approach you take.
I recently experienced another European shift when I got the train between Lucerne and Locarno. In Lucerne it was mild, cloudy, mountainous, German, then you go into that massive train tunnel at Gothard, and you emerge into sun, palm trees, pizzerias, campaniles and everyone speaks Italian
Going through that tunnel is like being reincarnated
People bothered to read Starmer's 14,000 word blank sheet of paper? More fool them.
It's 14,000 words long - who has time to write that much and more importantly what audience does he think has the time and willingness to read all of it.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
Starmer is being interviewed by Marr on Sunday and it looks as if he is in for a difficult time
People do not want 14,000 words, they want simple clear and costed policies relevant to them
Well, the 2019 Conservative Manifesto was 64 pages long, I'd guess about 60,000 words. Nobody read that either.
Least of all Johnson by the way things have panned out.
I skim-read Starmer's essay. It's a bit of a curate's egg. I think it needs more distinctive content to cut through with the media and the public. Interestingly, the bit where he outlined some actual ideas for improving the country, section 4, was the best bit. The last section was poor though, and the ten bullet points at the end are just instantly forgettable motherhood and apple pie stuff. I think Labour need a small number of distinctive policies and a clear attack line against the government. It's probably too early for the former though - any ideas that are too good will just get nicked by the government.
I haven't read it, so I shouldn't snipe. I will read it.
However, "curate's egg" is perhaps an unfortunate description, given that it - in the famous cartoon, at least -refers to something that is in fact rotten throughout, even though its supporter(s) claim that some bits are quite excellent.
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
But by all accounts there's nothing said in the 14,000 words. Even if there is, who the hell has got time to read it. My master's thesis was only about 25k words and that was a culmination of 4 years of university.
If you can't see that 14,000 words is excessive then it's you that has got the issue, not us. I've got an open mind for Labour, but not enough to waste my time reading 14,000 words of what appears to be a long winded way of saying nothing at all.
He is writing for the Fabian Society, to be fair, not The Sun. People who are into things like the FS probably don't mind reading 14,000 words. When it comes to addressing the public at large he will obviously be more direct.
One of the very few things I like(d) about Boris is that the London Plan, which I think is a statutory requirement of the Mayor, was very clearly edited by Boris.
Unfortunately for Rayner I think a Northern woman with a tendency to being aggressive in PMQs would play into a classist-sexist stereotype that would go down badly with the public.
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
But by all accounts there's nothing said in the 14,000 words. Even if there is, who the hell has got time to read it. My master's thesis was only about 25k words and that was a culmination of 4 years of university.
If you can't see that 14,000 words is excessive then it's you that has got the issue, not us. I've got an open mind for Labour, but not enough to waste my time reading 14,000 words of what appears to be a long winded way of saying nothing at all.
He is writing for the Fabian Society, to be fair, not The Sun. People who are into things like the FS probably don't mind reading 14,000 words. When it comes to addressing the public at large he will obviously be more direct.
A very fair point Isam. Not something I have written before, I don't suppose...now on to your charisma quotient thesis.
Which means they actively managed to find a ghost writer as ball-numbingly boring as the great knight himself.
I'm sure he wrote it himself, although there are passages where he's clearly taken direction. It's not so bad really as a document, although tongue in cheek I'd describe it as an Ed Davey suicide note.
It won't help SKS a jot though, possibly even EdStone-ish.
Which means they actively managed to find a ghost writer as ball-numbingly boring as the great knight himself.
I am 99% certain he wrote it himself. It is *him*. Perhaps he then had it heavily edited by his team, to make sure they took out any stray, unexpected hints of humour, intelligence, novelty, insight, personality or political wit
No hired professional writer would ever produce something THAT boring
For what it is worth, my gut feeling is that Angela Rayner would raise moral amongst some (many?) labour supporters but would do worse than Starmer at a GE.
Of course she would, Corbyn Labour got 32% at the 2019 general election.
The last 6 polls have Labour on 35%, 35%, 35%, 37% and 35% and 36%.
Rayner like Corbyn would no doubt get more diehard socialists attending a Labour rally than Starmer. However like Corbyn she would also get more middle of the road voters rushing to the polling station to vote Tory or LD to keep her out of No 10 like Corbyn but less like Starmer
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country. 2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something. 3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it? 4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say. 5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country. 6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
But by all accounts there's nothing said in the 14,000 words. Even if there is, who the hell has got time to read it. My master's thesis was only about 25k words and that was a culmination of 4 years of university.
If you can't see that 14,000 words is excessive then it's you that has got the issue, not us. I've got an open mind for Labour, but not enough to waste my time reading 14,000 words of what appears to be a long winded way of saying nothing at all.
He is writing for the Fabian Society, to be fair, not The Sun. People who are into things like the FS probably don't mind reading 14,000 words. When it comes to addressing the public at large he will obviously be more direct.
To govern is to choose between options in hard cases, some where there are a choice of arguably good options, some where all the options are sub optimal. SKS has not yet revealed that capacity make hard choices in opposition. This document, I think, fails to advance him in this way. SKS needs to be convincing as a chooser between options. As Boris has done over both Brexit and the way it has been implemented.
If SKS says: Join SM and have FOM as a consequence, or indeed the opposite he would show something of that. But not by flying unicorns like 'Closer to the SM'.
Ok, I've read the Foreword and it's excellent. Anybody saying otherwise either hasn't read it or is commenting in bad faith. It hits the right notes - in the right order - and it pushes the right buttons. In particular it stresses exactly what I would stress, viz:
- The Tories have been in for ages and have failed. FAILED. - They're all talk and no action. Dirty talk it is too. - Covid exposed what an unequal country we are and what overstretched public services we have. - All of this due to Tory neglect and vandalism. - So many people in Britain feel insecure. INSECURE. - They deserve better. We all do quite frankly. - It's time for a change. Labour has changed. It's time for Labour.
This bit, in particular, hits hard and cuts through:
"Covid-19 has also exposed the many fragilities in the ways we live, work and are governed. Inequality of opportunity and a lack of security are not inevitable - they are a result of a decade of Tory government that stripped back the state and left our country’s foundations weakened when the virus struck.
"Security" again, see? And "inequality" but carefully caveated with "of opportunity" so as not to frighten the skittish horses of Middle England. I also like the buzzphrase, the Contribution Society. Unlike the clear nonsense of Cameron's "Big Society" and Johnson's "Levelling Up" this one means something and you can easily imagine actual policies to prove that it does.
It really is a terrific Foreword. Literally my only quibble - and it is a quibble - is with the following:
"Our country is now at a crossroads. Down one path is the same old insecurity and lack of opportunity. But down the Labour one is something better: a society built on everyone’s contribution."
That is not a "crossroads" (which has 3 options), it's a "fork in the road".
But anyway, far as I'm concerned, just based on the Foreword, it's so far so good. More than good.
Comments
If that’s not you, they make very little sense at all, worst of both worlds.
Better to say zero. His advisors should have stopped him. He will now be mocked by his enemies, and he has disappointed his allies. That's a pretty basic political error
My brother recently got one as a company car with ~30 mile range (real life, not sure what the stated range is). That is actually enough to do most of the journeys on electric (it's PHEV) for his situation. Work is mostly train, so journeys are mostly around town and to my parents ~13 miles away.
I still think they're a technical dead end - you add a lot of complexity and weight. I doubt I'll ever buy one as a personal car - it's ICE now, at some point it will be electric. But if they shift emissions out of city centres over the next few years then that's a good thing (and maybe also boost demand for a viable charging network).
In Hamburg, they geo-lock the Lime Scooters so that in parks and other areas they can only go at a moderate walking pace.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
It works if the batteries are leased, it doesn't work if the batteries are owned - so I can see it being practical for Lorries and not for cars.
Mind you for Lorries I hope JCB's hydrogen engines take off.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58664788
Didn't another the oddball, ex-Speaker Bercow (also facing bullying allegations) use his position to cover up the accusations against Vaz?
Two rotten apples maybe...
COP26 is seeking a 100 billion a year commitment which he considers is chicken feed demanding more than a trillion
His argument is that the world has spent billions on covid, so they can easily afford the trillions needed for climate change
He trashed the idea of electric cars and demanded public transport everywhere to virtually abolish the car
Zealots like him are doing enormous damage to their cause with these utterly unrealistic demands that no western government could accept if it wanted to stay in power
I am concerned that all the presenters seem to do is to listen to their extraordinary demands and say thank you for your interview
Not one question or attempt to put them on the spot, just simply allowing their views to go unchallenged
And yet these same zealots who are quick to attack the west but never have a bad word for China or Russia
This narrative has to be challenged
Model 3 Standard Range
8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
Then somewhere halfway across Hampshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire we very noticeably transition from the South East to the West Country. The accent changes, the countryside and place names too, and the weather becomes softer.
My favourites though are in France as you drive down the autoroutes. At Laon we lose the Flemish air of Pas de Calais and are clearly in proper France, then at Troyes the building stones change, the forests start and we're in Central France. At Macon another sensory border as the steep pitched roofs give way to Roman canal tiles and cypresses and swimming pools start to appear - we are in the Southern half of the country, just like when you drive through the Vendee into Charente. Finally, just South of Montelimar the midi starts abruptly, literally one ridge and the climate and vegetation are Mediterranean. That must be one of the most abrupt and comprehensive changes within one country.
https://www.nio.com/news/nio-announces-nio-power-2025-battery-swap-station-deployment-plan
As Churchill asked,
“Où est la masse de manœuvre?”
“Aucune”
I think Starmer is labour's best choice just now
Real world measured numbers are 10% per 160,000 miles, or thereabouts.
OK.
In my defence I've got my first head cold for 18 months. Everything seems muffled, and a little unreal.
Point is that this is my personal vehicle, not a company car. I need ground clearance and 4wd is helpful up here, I've repeatedly loaded it to the roofline on tip runs. Its significantly cheaper to run than a diesel, is a lot cleaner, and there's a lot less mechanical stuff to go wrong.
I'll go full EV once a similar car at a similar price becomes available...
Warranties like the above are specced to be easily met.
I really don't know what he was hoping to achieve from it but it won't provide reasons for Red Wall voters to return to Labour.
Ultimately, motors, brakes, and normal car functions, will last a lot longer in an electric vehicle than a petrol powered one.
However (and it's a big however), that is not true of batteries.
Every charge, discharge cycle reduces the capacity of a battery a little bit. After you've had an electric car for two or three years, you might notice that instead of getting 240 miles per charge, you're now only getting 220. (Vendors other than Tesla avoid this somewhat by overspeccing the batteries, and showing you a fake low range for the first two years or so.)
The question is, what's the useful life of a battery, and how does that affect the long-term maintenance costs, given the battery is going to be the most expensive part of the vehicle. And given, too, that most people won't want to put a new £10,000 battery into a car whose other parts have deprectiated to - say - £3,000.
Well...
The general industry view is that you keep battery capacity loss to acceptable levels (20%) for about 65,000 miles / 8 years. We don't know yet if that's true, because few electric cars have run that long.
But there is some good news. Those 80-85% capacity batteries still have a lot of value. You might not want them in your car, because the storage-to-weight equation doesn't work. But in other areas, like uninterruptable power supplies, it's simply no big deal.
I have a friend here in the US with a business that buys up used electric cars from second hand auctions, removes the battery and retrieves the 18650 cells from them. They're then tested and sorted and sold on. He reckons he's currently making around a 50% return on every car he purchases, and his biggest problem is getting labour in Las Vegas to work stripping down the car and batteries.
In the long run, my friend's business won't exist. Car companies aren't going to leave that money on the table. Let's say that a battery pack is $10,000 for a Tesla Model 3. And let's say that at 80% capacity, it's worth $5,000. This means that you have $5,000 of cost amortized over 50,000 miles. That's about 10 cents per mile of implied battery depreciation. Not nothing by any means. But also not that much when one considers the other maintenance savings.
Current battery warranties are around 8 years / 100k miles to maintain 60-75% of capacity.
I’ll disagree that they are less mechanically complex than a diesel one though, they have two powertrains, and in time will need two lots of maintainance.
Though Osborne started on this in about 2016-17 when half of the new cars in the country were efficient enough to qualify for zero tax.
She would be a total inspiration.
Real amateur hour politics from Labour.
Why is AstraZeneca choosing to locate their new facility in Ireland (Corporate Tax Rate: 12.5%) instead of the UK (Corporate Tax Rate: 25%)?
https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1440960032728829955?s=21
The more serious problem is that they are so valuable, and degrade over time, so that it would be a bit like problems with debased coinage. You might be swapping in a fully-charged battery pack, but would the battery be in as good condition?
Fortunately, I was embodied in the Godot like Mancunian character* and, not appearing, was spared seven shades of literary spit-roasting.
* my non appearance stemmed from the fact that he didn't get to line manage me as he had expected.
People do not want 14,000 words, they want simple clear and costed policies relevant to them
Doubly so, given what happened to her when she voiced an opinion on a politically-divisive issue once before.
I love trying to spot, somewhere south of Lyon, where it is that you suddenly hit Provence and the Midi sun. It is an abrupt change, as you say
Another one is the transition to the Scottish Highlands from the Lowlands.
One of my faves is the shift from German middle Europe to Italian southern Europe about 30 miles south of the Brenner Pass
AstraZeneca already has lots of costs in the UK, specifically lots of R&D work. If they put more costs into the UK, it might tip their UK operations into loss, which wouldn't do them any good at all.
It is utterly unsurprising that the warranty is well inside the expected battery life.
It's odd how so many of these clear eyed, tough guys of the right take a break from cutting through woke bs by engaging in these clinches with each other. The idea that they're part of some heroic, persecuted band is very strong juice for them.
I've driven cars that have felt like a ticking timebomb. The engine has so many weak points. The gearbox needs tender loving care. This isn't one of those.
1. What does Starmer stand for? He needs to set out a vision, not specific policies this early, but a vision of where he wants to take the country.
2. 14,000 words? I can't be bothered to read that, far too long. We need a 3-word vision, like Get Brexit Undone or something.
3. I've read it, and I don't like Starmer's vision. Why did he waste his time writing it?
4. What's the point of Starmer? He has nothing to say.
5. It's about time Starmer set out a vision for the future of the country.
6. Mind you, I'd never vote for him anyway, because I'm a Tory.
If you can charge at home and do a lot of your journeys electrically it makes sense.
Also obvs 4x4 suits anyone living in the sticks.
Personally I am on a big estate which will tow 2 tons, and cost me 26k new (reduced from 36k) for a Euro 6 diesel, and does 60mpg too. The plan is to keep it as my last ICE car, except for a low mileage lightweight fun wagon.
I need an electric that will also tow 2 tons. Not here yet, except for vanity prices.
I think Labour need a small number of distinctive policies and a clear attack line against the government. It's probably too early for the former though - any ideas that are too good will just get nicked by the government.
The trick that Tesla are starting to pull is employing battery storage at the fast charging stations. Retail consumers of power get charged by the kWh. Large commercial consumers also get charged by the kW (or rather MW). And that can be smoothed out with on site storage, by drawing power during troughs of demand and even selling back in peaks if not used by charging vehicles.
And as has been said, there is going to be a rolling cascade of cheap storage batteries hitting the market as the high density batteries in EVs reach a less useful energy density. Exciting times.
Probably she wouldn’t. Which is what makes her even more appealing.
I note that the same article mentions a 25% bigger investment in the North-West of England.
We'll need some classic Boris Johnson comedy charisma to keep us laughing.
Yet he still managed to disappoint. It was even duller and more inane than I anticipated
You can disbelieve me if you like, but then you are deceiving yourself, and that's not good
Hah.
Go Lanky!
If you can't see that 14,000 words is excessive then it's you that has got the issue, not us. I've got an open mind for Labour, but not enough to waste my time reading 14,000 words of what appears to be a long winded way of saying nothing at all.
Which goes to show the scale of Labour's Woke Problem
One to come back to in 2 years and 8 months when we can review just how "specific, outward-looking and compelling" he really got.
Why did so many Tory’s vote Labour in 1997?
Anyway, to keep the sly quoting we have going on here, somewhere around page 18 (maybe 118, I was nodding by then) of this weeks most famous essay, Starmer recalls his diary entry for 28th Feb - and this bit there some sit up, less cliched more cerebral tone, and probably Starmers failed leadership itself, all summed up in one paragraph, as nothing to dislike, but does it really excite?
clip-clop of hooves rattle of carriage, rhythmic sounds upon cobbles and down uneven lanes. The drove of people and livestock with filthy hum, had given way to stiller landscape, greener, with much less distracting odours. Puddles in and by the way revealed pours of the previous day; now and again, while owner wrought affairs, a hungry horse rested, the blessed dressed in nosebag or trough. The day passed by with winks of the eye, it was late afternoon of 28th of February as the carriage approached Greenfields. Between ellipse of seasonal verdure, grows a stern fascia, rising upward, challenging this sky with rich Gothic gravitas - a defiance to the ashen liberal and rich-blue republican of heaven. On cusp of evening, a scornful north breeze now arisen, misshaped shadows lengthen into impenetrable vegetation - while above in the winter sky line, a crescent moon all but set.
The steed is affection for carrying you step by laborious reason, reigns still now on drive, business done. Perched upon arch with welcome trill, sparrow sings greeting, a picture of happiness in this domicile, if indeed her meaning...
But there’s doesn’t seem to be much else.
Andy Burnham, Tracy Brabin and dare I say it Ben Houchen get some media attention.
Dan Jarvis and Andy Street; not so much.
Sadiq is not so much anonymous as actively awful. In fact, I think he’s got worse with every passing year in the mayoralty.
Brilliant! Typical French Cartesian precision
I guess it must also depend on the approach you take.
I recently experienced another European shift when I got the train between Lucerne and Locarno. In Lucerne it was mild, cloudy, mountainous, German, then you go into that massive train tunnel at Gothard, and you emerge into sun, palm trees, pizzerias, campaniles and everyone speaks Italian
Going through that tunnel is like being reincarnated
However, "curate's egg" is perhaps an unfortunate description, given that it - in the famous cartoon, at least -refers to something that is in fact rotten throughout, even though its supporter(s) claim that some bits are quite excellent.
Which means they actively managed to find a ghost writer as ball-numbingly boring as the great knight himself.
Bit short for a lawyer.
Was actually a good read.
It won't help SKS a jot though, possibly even EdStone-ish.
No hired professional writer would ever produce something THAT boring
The last 6 polls have Labour on 35%, 35%, 35%, 37% and 35% and 36%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
Rayner like Corbyn would no doubt get more diehard socialists attending a Labour rally than Starmer. However like Corbyn she would also get more middle of the road voters rushing to the polling station to vote Tory or LD to keep her out of No 10 like Corbyn but less like Starmer
SKS has not yet revealed that capacity make hard choices in opposition. This document, I think, fails to advance him in this way. SKS needs to be convincing as a chooser between options. As Boris has done over both Brexit and the way it has been implemented.
If SKS says: Join SM and have FOM as a consequence, or indeed the opposite he would show something of that. But not by flying unicorns like 'Closer to the SM'.
- The Tories have been in for ages and have failed. FAILED.
- They're all talk and no action. Dirty talk it is too.
- Covid exposed what an unequal country we are and what overstretched public services we have.
- All of this due to Tory neglect and vandalism.
- So many people in Britain feel insecure. INSECURE.
- They deserve better. We all do quite frankly.
- It's time for a change. Labour has changed. It's time for Labour.
This bit, in particular, hits hard and cuts through:
"Covid-19 has also exposed the many fragilities in the ways we live, work and are governed. Inequality of opportunity and a lack of security are not inevitable - they are a result of a decade of Tory government that stripped back the state and left our country’s foundations weakened when the virus struck.
"Security" again, see? And "inequality" but carefully caveated with "of opportunity" so as not to frighten the skittish horses of Middle England. I also like the buzzphrase, the Contribution Society. Unlike the clear nonsense of Cameron's "Big Society" and Johnson's "Levelling Up" this one means something and you can easily imagine actual policies to prove that it does.
It really is a terrific Foreword. Literally my only quibble - and it is a quibble - is with the following:
"Our country is now at a crossroads. Down one path is the same old insecurity and lack of opportunity. But down the Labour one is something better: a society built on everyone’s contribution."
That is not a "crossroads" (which has 3 options), it's a "fork in the road".
But anyway, far as I'm concerned, just based on the Foreword, it's so far so good. More than good.
On we go.