Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whatever the outcome tonight Richmond Park could herald a poli

SystemSystem Posts: 12,680
edited December 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whatever the outcome tonight Richmond Park could herald a political period where BREXIT is more important than parties

. Today’s Richmond Park by-election highlights a very new development in British politics where the main issue of the day, BREXIT and its implementation, have become more important than parties.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    First?
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Boris Johnson criticised for promoting book on official Serbia visit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/30/boris-johnson-promotes-churchill-factor-book-official-visit-serbia?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Sleaford's Brexit byelection: a people united by fear for the future

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/nov/30/sleaford-lincolnshire-brexit-byelection-young-video?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Huge backlog as EU citizens rush to secure British residency

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/30/eu-citizens-in-uk-home-office-residency-applications-right-to-remain-before-brexit-talks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Archbishop of Canterbury warns of 'division and despair' if Brexit plan is based on money rather than people. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwyNCppjI
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,868
    We are currently in a mere blip in the political timeline. Normal service will be resumed once we serve notice under Article 50.

    I can't see any argument for standing aside to assist UKIP in any seats. In some of those seats, a UKIP going for the WWC vote gives a chance of splitting the vote and letting the Tory in through the middle. In any event, it would be seen as a form of coalition, however informal - and the Tories would then be aligned with every batshit pronouncement about gays affecting the weather that some bonkers UKIP no-name wants to spout.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. Submarine, or, to rephrase, "Millionaire who lives in a palace not especially worried about money situation" :p

    On-topic: an interesting suggestion. If that is the case, and it persists, it would have significant implications for how the next General Election goes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    To raise an unrelated point made on the last thread, why did May set such a firm date for triggering a50. As come,icated as leaving will be the formal triggering probably should be doable by then, and it would be pretty crazy if a year went by and we hadn't done it, but if she came to believe that we genuinely needed a bit more time to do so, there's really no reason we shouldn't deejay beyond March, but now if she tries she'd look like a fool, and so even if she thinks we should wait a bit she won't.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    It's interesting as UKIP and greens stood aside it seems on the basis of Brexit positioning, and yet I'd bet the actual voters won't shift along those lines anywhere like as much - that is, the parties will perform in line with how we'd expect regardless, and you wouldn't see the LDs jump to second from 5th in a seat with 70%remain voters, even if they were the only ones pushing a remain argument.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?
  • Chris_from_ParisChris_from_Paris Posts: 198
    FPT French Election - Official start of the left-wing primary

    The candidacies need to be presented between today and December 15.
    Eachcandidate from the socialist party (PS) needs the support of a fixed number of party MPs (19) or local councillors (66) or mayors (10) or mambers of the national executive (15).
    Representatives of small parties allied to the PS are directly accepted as candidates.

    Arnaud Montebourg and Benoit Hamon, both form the left-wing of the party and both former ministers of Hollande, have already officially deposited their supporters names and are officially candidates.
    Marie Noelle Lienemann (yet another left-wing member and former minister) should also get the support she needs. Gerard Filoche (from the most leftist faction) probably not.

    Francois de Rugy (Parti ecologiste), Jean-Luc Benhamias (Front democrate) and Pierre Larrouturou (Nouvelle donne), présidents of their respective micro-parties allied to the PS, wwill be directly accepted.

    Of all these declared candidates, only Montebourg is considered to have a chance.

    But the main suspense now is whether/when Hollande will announce his candidacy and if he will try to kill the primary. Valls would have to go through the primary anyway.

    My guess is that Hollande will announce his candidacy this weekend. It will look absurd if he tries to avoid the primary but it is by no means impossible.

    The challenge for any primary winner will be to deal with the 6 other candidates from the left: 3 far-left candidates (Arthaud, Poutou, Mélenchon), the Green (Jadot), the Radical (Pinel) and Macron (who still says he is left wing)
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Submarine, or, to rephrase, "Millionaire who lives in a palace not especially worried about money situation" :p

    On-topic: an interesting suggestion. If that is the case, and it persists, it would have significant implications for how the next General Election goes.

    Unless he's given it all away Welby will be a millionaire. However as serving Anglican Cleric he's forbidden to take any earned income other than his stipend. It's about 3.5 X the salary of parish clergy. So the CoE practices what it preaches on pay ratios. I think he'd argue he lives in quite a small flat within a palace !
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It is pretty ridiculous. Going through the speed limit on the motorway is almost dangerous and causes back ups, that's how silly the situation is. Maybe the police should genuinely enforce the rules for one week - the fines woukd rake in tens of millions, and the outrage would mean either people did slow down, for a time, or the law changed to reflect reality.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Parties standing aside smacks of weakness.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. Paris, thanks for that summary of the French left's preparations for the election next year.

    Mr. Patrick, cars are safer now than they've ever been. This daft policy would add an hour to the travelling time for a 140 mile journey, losing the economy an hour of someone working or spending money as they go on holiday.

    The taxpayer/Government is spending £50bn or so to cut 40 minutes off the travelling time from London to Birmingham, whilst NICE proposes a speed limit change to add more than 40 minutes to the travelling time from London to Birmingham.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Chris_from_Paris said:

    FPT French Election - Official start of the left-wing primary

    The candidacies need to be presented between today and December 15.
    Eachcandidate from the socialist party (PS) needs the support of a fixed number of party MPs (19) or local councillors (66) or mayors (10) or mambers of the national executive (15).
    Representatives of small parties allied to the PS are directly accepted as candidates.

    Arnaud Montebourg and Benoit Hamon, both form the left-wing of the party and both former ministers of Hollande, have already officially deposited their supporters names and are officially candidates.
    Marie Noelle Lienemann (yet another left-wing member and former minister) should also get the support she needs. Gerard Filoche (from the most leftist faction) probably not.

    Francois de Rugy (Parti ecologiste), Jean-Luc Benhamias (Front democrate) and Pierre Larrouturou (Nouvelle donne), présidents of their respective micro-parties allied to the PS, wwill be directly accepted.

    Of all these declared candidates, only Montebourg is considered to have a chance.

    But the main suspense now is whether/when Hollande will announce his candidacy and if he will try to kill the primary. Valls would have to go through the primary anyway.

    My guess is that Hollande will announce his candidacy this weekend. It will look absurd if he tries to avoid the primary but it is by no means impossible.

    The challenge for any primary winner will be to deal with the 6 other candidates from the left: 3 far-left candidates (Arthaud, Poutou, Mélenchon), the Green (Jadot), the Radical (Pinel) and Macron (who still says he is left wing)

    That's a lot of left parties.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Submarine, or, to rephrase, "Millionaire who lives in a palace not especially worried about money situation" :p

    On-topic: an interesting suggestion. If that is the case, and it persists, it would have significant implications for how the next General Election goes.

    Good morning Mr Dancer,
    I finished Kingdom Asunder last night and I've got to say it was a cracking yarn. Highly recommended to everyone, and I felt a little guilty at enjoying a book so much for the price of less than a pint. You should be getting more for your work.
    I'll pen something as an Amazon review to (partly) assuage my guilty conscience.
    My heartiest congratulations on your achievement (so far).
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    Kinetic energy depends on speed squared. Bugger that, isn't it?

    Hopefully when you crash and kill yourself no one else will be hurt.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. Submarine, if I had millions of pounds in the bank, I'd be more relaxed about my earning situation too.

    As an aside, today's the last day of the early order discount (60% normal price) for Kingdom Asunder.

    As a Klingon might say, today is a good day to buy.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    Jonathan said:

    Parties standing aside smacks of weakness.

    Parties losing deposit demonstrates weakness.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,784
    As things stand this morning, Clinton is now 1.9% ahead on the popular vote and that lead is clearly going to exceed 2% in due course. So in 2020, with a uniform swing against him, Trump could still afford to be 3% behind in the popular vote and end up winning the electoral college.

    I assume that the US Greens are instigating pointless recounts because they have at last woken up to the fact that they should be concerned that Clinton lost to Trump. Now that the penny has dropped, on the subject of the Greens standing aside in Richmond (UK), perhaps they ought to have a word with their colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic about doing the same in 2020.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Paris, thanks for that summary of the French left's preparations for the election next year.

    Mr. Patrick, cars are safer now than they've ever been. This daft policy would add an hour to the travelling time for a 140 mile journey, losing the economy an hour of someone working or spending money as they go on holiday.

    The taxpayer/Government is spending £50bn or so to cut 40 minutes off the travelling time from London to Birmingham, whilst NICE proposes a speed limit change to add more than 40 minutes to the travelling time from London to Birmingham.

    From what I remember, the 70mph speed limit was set just after the first part the M1 was completed and people were going up and down at over 100mph. The majority of cars were fitted with crossply tyres and were unsafe at those speeds, hence the 70mph limit. Now, Radials are the norm and these are safe at much higher speeds.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    logical_song said:

    Jonathan said:

    Parties standing aside smacks of weakness.

    Parties losing deposit demonstrates weakness.
    Parties with joke leaders demonstrate weakness
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    YellowSubmarine said:

    Boris Johnson criticised for promoting book on official Serbia visit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/30/boris-johnson-promotes-churchill-factor-book-official-visit-serbia?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

    Ironic yet fitting because Churchill himself used to play fast and loose with the rules about working as an author while in office (partly to evade income tax imposed by his own government).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Bromptonaut said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    Kinetic energy depends on speed squared. Bugger that, isn't it?

    Hopefully when you crash and kill yourself no one else will be hurt.
    People drive at the speeds that feel safe, changing speed limits won't really affect that. 70mph is not followed by 95% of drivers, it's well known but nobidy official bothers to try to stop it, so apparently it's not seen as a concern. Therefore either the limit should increase as it's accepted that level is safe, or they should actually enforce. There seems no appetite for the latter even though it woukd presumably pay for itself.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    As things stand this morning, Clinton is now 1.9% ahead on the popular vote and that lead is clearly going to exceed 2% in due course. So in 2020, with a uniform swing against him, Trump could still afford to be 3% behind in the popular vote and end up winning the electoral college.

    I assume that the US Greens are instigating pointless recounts because they have at last woken up to the fact that they should be concerned that Clinton lost to Trump. Now that the penny has dropped, on the subject of the Greens standing aside in Richmond (UK), perhaps they ought to have a word with their colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic about doing the same in 2020.

    "So in 2020, with a uniform swing against him, Trump could still afford to be 3% behind in the popular vote and end up winning the electoral college. "
    It doesn't work like that. WI and PA for example would fall on a very small swing to the Democrats and then Trump would lose the EC.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It's a daily mail article... you're supposed to have your blood boiling afterwards.

    On the substance... variable speed limits rather than blanket speed limits to improve traffic flow seem a good idea.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Submarine, if I had millions of pounds in the bank, I'd be more relaxed about my earning situation too.

    As an aside, today's the last day of the early order discount (60% normal price) for Kingdom Asunder.

    As a Klingon might say, today is a good day to buy.

    Does that discount apply to the e-book?
    And is the book available for kobo e-readers?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It is pretty ridiculous. Going through the speed limit on the motorway is almost dangerous and causes back ups, that's how silly the situation is. Maybe the police should genuinely enforce the rules for one week - the fines woukd rake in tens of millions, and the outrage would mean either people did slow down, for a time, or the law changed to reflect reality.
    To be fair, the Nice chap quoted is advocating variable motorway speed limits.

    From OP's Mail link: ‘If the traffic is such that you are stopping and starting, decelerating and accelerating, then that increases emissions, pollution and fuel consumption,’ said Professor Mark Baker, director for the centre of guidelines at Nice. ‘In those circumstances, slowing everything down to 60mph or 50mph is the best approach – but not all the time. That’s why variable speed limits are far more sensible than blanket 50mph or 60mph (limits).
    ‘Variable speed limits are useful where at times the volume of traffic results in unhealthy driving conditions – which is stopping and starting. So M25 most of the time, M4 on a Sunday, M1 on a Friday evening.’
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    edited December 2016
    Mr. rkrkrk, it's e-book only currently and the Kobo edition is up here: https://www.kobo.com/gb/en/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one

    Edited extra bit: and thanks :)

    Mr. Rog, indeed.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    As things stand this morning, Clinton is now 1.9% ahead on the popular vote and that lead is clearly going to exceed 2% in due course. So in 2020, with a uniform swing against him, Trump could still afford to be 3% behind in the popular vote and end up winning the electoral college.

    I assume that the US Greens are instigating pointless recounts because they have at last woken up to the fact that they should be concerned that Clinton lost to Trump. Now that the penny has dropped, on the subject of the Greens standing aside in Richmond (UK), perhaps they ought to have a word with their colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic about doing the same in 2020.

    Whatever happened to Bernie's brother, wasn't he standing in an election here very recently?

    Speaking of US Greenies, I'm having trouble spotting Jill Stein on their website

    It's either terrible website navigation or the Party isn't too keen on her right now

    http://www.gp.org/
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Blue_rog said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Paris, thanks for that summary of the French left's preparations for the election next year.

    Mr. Patrick, cars are safer now than they've ever been. This daft policy would add an hour to the travelling time for a 140 mile journey, losing the economy an hour of someone working or spending money as they go on holiday.

    The taxpayer/Government is spending £50bn or so to cut 40 minutes off the travelling time from London to Birmingham, whilst NICE proposes a speed limit change to add more than 40 minutes to the travelling time from London to Birmingham.

    From what I remember, the 70mph speed limit was set just after the first part the M1 was completed and people were going up and down at over 100mph. The majority of cars were fitted with crossply tyres and were unsafe at those speeds, hence the 70mph limit. Now, Radials are the norm and these are safe at much higher speeds.
    Could be.

    I always thought speed limits were based on stopping distances. When this was first envisaged the braking systems were not advanced as they are today. Top Gear showed this is one of their episodes and showed at high speeds cars today can stop in a very much shorter distance than previously when the "driving test" distance was established.

    The actual problem though is knowledge and experience. People can purchase high performance cars with little idea how to harness that energy safely nor do many read the road ahead for dangers and conditions.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Moses_ said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Paris, thanks for that summary of the French left's preparations for the election next year.

    Mr. Patrick, cars are safer now than they've ever been. This daft policy would add an hour to the travelling time for a 140 mile journey, losing the economy an hour of someone working or spending money as they go on holiday.

    The taxpayer/Government is spending £50bn or so to cut 40 minutes off the travelling time from London to Birmingham, whilst NICE proposes a speed limit change to add more than 40 minutes to the travelling time from London to Birmingham.

    From what I remember, the 70mph speed limit was set just after the first part the M1 was completed and people were going up and down at over 100mph. The majority of cars were fitted with crossply tyres and were unsafe at those speeds, hence the 70mph limit. Now, Radials are the norm and these are safe at much higher speeds.
    Could be.

    I always thought speed limits were based on stopping distances. When this was first envisaged the braking systems were not advanced as they are today. Top Gear showed this is one of their episodes and showed at high speeds cars today can stop in a very much shorter distance than previously when the "driving test" distance was established.

    The actual problem though is knowledge and experience. People can purchase high performance cars with little idea how to harness that energy safely nor do many read the road ahead for dangers and conditions.
    Not all road users are in metal boxes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,038
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    kle4 said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It is pretty ridiculous. Going through the speed limit on the motorway is almost dangerous and causes back ups, that's how silly the situation is. Maybe the police should genuinely enforce the rules for one week - the fines woukd rake in tens of millions, and the outrage would mean either people did slow down, for a time, or the law changed to reflect reality.
    To be fair, the Nice chap quoted is advocating variable motorway speed limits.

    From OP's Mail link: ‘If the traffic is such that you are stopping and starting, decelerating and accelerating, then that increases emissions, pollution and fuel consumption,’ said Professor Mark Baker, director for the centre of guidelines at Nice. ‘In those circumstances, slowing everything down to 60mph or 50mph is the best approach – but not all the time. That’s why variable speed limits are far more sensible than blanket 50mph or 60mph (limits).
    ‘Variable speed limits are useful where at times the volume of traffic results in unhealthy driving conditions – which is stopping and starting. So M25 most of the time, M4 on a Sunday, M1 on a Friday evening.’
    Britain's motorways are too congested, and our drivers too bad, to increase the speed limit above 70 MPH.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited December 2016
    Bromptonaut said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    Kinetic energy depends on speed squared. Bugger that, isn't it?

    Hopefully when you crash and kill yourself no one else will be hurt.
    But one imagines the chances of being involved in a collision increase with time spent on the road, which is inversely related to speed. Traffic density will also increase if speed slows, which again seems likely to increase the accident rate. Life's not a one variable linear equation. On the other hand, if Nice can keep traffic flowing, perhaps average speed will increase even as maximum speed falls.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    rkrkrk said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It's a daily mail article... you're supposed to have your blood boiling afterwards.

    On the substance... variable speed limits rather than blanket speed limits to improve traffic flow seem a good idea.
    We already have variable speed limits - the electronic signs above motorway lanes impose reduced limits when there's a crash/congestion/rain/ice/etc. I'm 100% fine with that. But when it's clear and bright and empty 70 is just too slow. I lived in the Netherlands for years and drove a lot in Germany too - the Dutch 130KMH and German 'no limit but the cops'll pull you if you're driving like a twat' system is much much better than our 1960s nonsense.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    Kinetic energy depends on speed squared. Bugger that, isn't it?

    Hopefully when you crash and kill yourself no one else will be hurt.
    But one imagines the chances of being involved in a collision increase with time spent on the road, which is inversely related to speed. Traffic density will also increase if speed slows, which again seems likely to increase the accident rate. Life's not a one variable linear equation. On the other hand, if Nice can keep traffic flowing, perhaps average speed will increase even as maximum speed falls.
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    Kinetic energy depends on speed squared. Bugger that, isn't it?

    Hopefully when you crash and kill yourself no one else will be hurt.
    But one imagines the chances of being involved in a collision increase with time spent on the road, which is inversely related to speed. Traffic density will also increase if speed slows, which again seems likely to increase the accident rate. Life's not a one variable linear equation. On the other hand, if Nice can keep traffic flowing, perhaps average speed will increase even as maximum speed falls.
    You have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to politics.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Bromptonaut said:

    Moses_ said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Paris, thanks for that summary of the French left's preparations for the election next year.

    Mr. Patrick, cars are safer now than they've ever been. This daft policy would add an hour to the travelling time for a 140 mile journey, losing the economy an hour of someone working or spending money as they go on holiday.

    The taxpayer/Government is spending £50bn or so to cut 40 minutes off the travelling time from London to Birmingham, whilst NICE proposes a speed limit change to add more than 40 minutes to the travelling time from London to Birmingham.

    From what I remember, the 70mph speed limit was set just after the first part the M1 was completed and people were going up and down at over 100mph. The majority of cars were fitted with crossply tyres and were unsafe at those speeds, hence the 70mph limit. Now, Radials are the norm and these are safe at much higher speeds.
    Could be.

    I always thought speed limits were based on stopping distances. When this was first envisaged the braking systems were not advanced as they are today. Top Gear showed this is one of their episodes and showed at high speeds cars today can stop in a very much shorter distance than previously when the "driving test" distance was established.

    The actual problem though is knowledge and experience. People can purchase high performance cars with little idea how to harness that energy safely nor do many read the road ahead for dangers and conditions.
    Not all road users are in metal boxes.
    That was my point not sure what yours is?

    Issues are caused by the Failure to read the road ahead and anticipate dangers for example what the road tax avoiding , helmet cammed, mobile chicane, riding a children's toy through a red light will actually do next.....

    :wink:
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Moses_ said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Moses_ said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Paris, thanks for that summary of the French left's preparations for the election next year.

    Mr. Patrick, cars are safer now than they've ever been. This daft policy would add an hour to the travelling time for a 140 mile journey, losing the economy an hour of someone working or spending money as they go on holiday.

    The taxpayer/Government is spending £50bn or so to cut 40 minutes off the travelling time from London to Birmingham, whilst NICE proposes a speed limit change to add more than 40 minutes to the travelling time from London to Birmingham.

    From what I remember, the 70mph speed limit was set just after the first part the M1 was completed and people were going up and down at over 100mph. The majority of cars were fitted with crossply tyres and were unsafe at those speeds, hence the 70mph limit. Now, Radials are the norm and these are safe at much higher speeds.
    Could be.

    I always thought speed limits were based on stopping distances. When this was first envisaged the braking systems were not advanced as they are today. Top Gear showed this is one of their episodes and showed at high speeds cars today can stop in a very much shorter distance than previously when the "driving test" distance was established.

    The actual problem though is knowledge and experience. People can purchase high performance cars with little idea how to harness that energy safely nor do many read the road ahead for dangers and conditions.
    Not all road users are in metal boxes.
    That was my point not sure what yours is?

    Issues are caused by the Failure to read the road ahead and anticipate dangers for example what the road tax avoiding , helmet cammed, mobile chicane, riding a children's toy through a red light will actually do next.....

    :wink:
    Hilarious.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Oh dear, what a pity....

    The Scottish public is losing confidence in the ability of SNP ministers to oversee the country’s health and education services, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.

    The YouGov research shows that the proportion of Scots satisfied with the Scottish government’s handling of its main devolved responsibilities has dropped in the past three months.

    As satisfaction with the running of the country’s hospitals, schools and colleges has declined, so has voter approval of the government’s handling of the economy and justice system.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bed99bba-b753-11e6-ad6e-9f844c3a07a7
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,100
    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    kle4 said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It is pretty ridiculous. Going through the speed limit on the motorway is almost dangerous and causes back ups, that's how silly the situation is. Maybe the police should genuinely enforce the rules for one week - the fines woukd rake in tens of millions, and the outrage would mean either people did slow down, for a time, or the law changed to reflect reality.
    To be fair, the Nice chap quoted is advocating variable motorway speed limits.

    From OP's Mail link: ‘If the traffic is such that you are stopping and starting, decelerating and accelerating, then that increases emissions, pollution and fuel consumption,’ said Professor Mark Baker, director for the centre of guidelines at Nice. ‘In those circumstances, slowing everything down to 60mph or 50mph is the best approach – but not all the time. That’s why variable speed limits are far more sensible than blanket 50mph or 60mph (limits).
    ‘Variable speed limits are useful where at times the volume of traffic results in unhealthy driving conditions – which is stopping and starting. So M25 most of the time, M4 on a Sunday, M1 on a Friday evening.’
    Britain's motorways are too congested, and our drivers too bad, to increase the speed limit above 70 MPH.
    Scrap the motorway speed limits, enforce lane discipline with points penalties. In urban areas failure to pass a horse wide & slow/safe manner should result in points too - as should passing a cyclist with less than a metre to spare.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I don't see this happening at all. Had there been an official Tory candidate in Richmond I suspect UKIP would have stood too.They were never going to do well here and by technically standing aside the Tories gave UKIP the perfect excuse to do likewise.
    I also believe such a move would be counterproductive in that many former working class Labour voters have switched to UKIP precisely because they are NOT Tories. Any form of alliance or agreement with them would significantly reduce their appeal to such voters.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,966
    logical_song said:

    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    As things stand this morning, Clinton is now 1.9% ahead on the popular vote and that lead is clearly going to exceed 2% in due course. So in 2020, with a uniform swing against him, Trump could still afford to be 3% behind in the popular vote and end up winning the electoral college.

    I assume that the US Greens are instigating pointless recounts because they have at last woken up to the fact that they should be concerned that Clinton lost to Trump. Now that the penny has dropped, on the subject of the Greens standing aside in Richmond (UK), perhaps they ought to have a word with their colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic about doing the same in 2020.

    "So in 2020, with a uniform swing against him, Trump could still afford to be 3% behind in the popular vote and end up winning the electoral college. "
    It doesn't work like that. WI and PA for example would fall on a very small swing to the Democrats and then Trump would lose the EC.
    Trump got 306 EC votes. Without WI (10) and PA (20) he'd still have 276 and be over the line. MI (16) would require less of a swing than PA to go Democrat though.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,783
    edited December 2016
    The Waugh Zone is interesting today both on the by-election and on Ed Balls' intentions:

    http://link.huffingtonpost.com/view/524aa3dc3227b874ccf803014wxys.6rj/5cb305ae

    His point about the prism through which politicians are seen is largely true, I think. Somewhat less for contituency MPs in their own patch, since voters have often met them.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 967
    The Green and UKIP votes would simply have cancelledf each other out, so really there is no need for the winning candidate to say anything on those lines.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,783
    edited December 2016
    Patrick said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It's a daily mail article... you're supposed to have your blood boiling afterwards.

    On the substance... variable speed limits rather than blanket speed limits to improve traffic flow seem a good idea.
    We already have variable speed limits - the electronic signs above motorway lanes impose reduced limits when there's a crash/congestion/rain/ice/etc. I'm 100% fine with that. But when it's clear and bright and empty 70 is just too slow. I lived in the Netherlands for years and drove a lot in Germany too - the Dutch 130KMH and German 'no limit but the cops'll pull you if you're driving like a twat' system is much much better than our 1960s nonsense.
    There aren't that many German motorways that are still unrestricted. But I do agree that having higher limits which are enforced (and I mean properly enforced, even with hidden cameras so we'd not think that we can play the system by slowing down in camera zones) would be better than the current "70, but hey, you can get away with +10%+2=79" hint. A former Chief Constable of Notts told me the unofficial limit that got you stopped was 85 in his county, but I have no idea if that's still the case.

    The other issue is pollution and energy saving. At very high speeds, cars use up petrol/diesel disproportionately faster, which is bad for both the air and the trade balance.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Bromptonaut said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    Kinetic energy depends on speed squared. Bugger that, isn't it?

    Hopefully when you crash and kill yourself no one else will be hurt.
    But one imagines the chances of being involved in a collision increase with time spent on the road, which is inversely related to speed. Traffic density will also increase if speed slows, which again seems likely to increase the accident rate. Life's not a one variable linear equation. On the other hand, if Nice can keep traffic flowing, perhaps average speed will increase even as maximum speed falls.
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    Kinetic energy depends on speed squared. Bugger that, isn't it?

    Hopefully when you crash and kill yourself no one else will be hurt.
    But one imagines the chances of being involved in a collision increase with time spent on the road, which is inversely related to speed. Traffic density will also increase if speed slows, which again seems likely to increase the accident rate. Life's not a one variable linear equation. On the other hand, if Nice can keep traffic flowing, perhaps average speed will increase even as maximum speed falls.
    You have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to politics.
    OK.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    Pulpstar said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    kle4 said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It is pretty ridiculous. Going through the speed limit on the motorway is almost dangerous and causes back ups, that's how silly the situation is. Maybe the police should genuinely enforce the rules for one week - the fines woukd rake in tens of millions, and the outrage would mean either people did slow down, for a time, or the law changed to reflect reality.
    To be fair, the Nice chap quoted is advocating variable motorway speed limits.

    From OP's Mail link: ‘If the traffic is such that you are stopping and starting, decelerating and accelerating, then that increases emissions, pollution and fuel consumption,’ said Professor Mark Baker, director for the centre of guidelines at Nice. ‘In those circumstances, slowing everything down to 60mph or 50mph is the best approach – but not all the time. That’s why variable speed limits are far more sensible than blanket 50mph or 60mph (limits).
    ‘Variable speed limits are useful where at times the volume of traffic results in unhealthy driving conditions – which is stopping and starting. So M25 most of the time, M4 on a Sunday, M1 on a Friday evening.’
    Britain's motorways are too congested, and our drivers too bad, to increase the speed limit above 70 MPH.
    Scrap the motorway speed limits, enforce lane discipline with points penalties. In urban areas failure to pass a horse wide & slow/safe manner should result in points too - as should passing a cyclist with less than a metre to spare.
    That last rule gets broken against me everyday!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,930
    PlatoSaid said:

    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    As things stand this morning, Clinton is now 1.9% ahead on the popular vote and that lead is clearly going to exceed 2% in due course. So in 2020, with a uniform swing against him, Trump could still afford to be 3% behind in the popular vote and end up winning the electoral college.

    I assume that the US Greens are instigating pointless recounts because they have at last woken up to the fact that they should be concerned that Clinton lost to Trump. Now that the penny has dropped, on the subject of the Greens standing aside in Richmond (UK), perhaps they ought to have a word with their colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic about doing the same in 2020.

    Whatever happened to Bernie's brother, wasn't he standing in an election here very recently?

    Speaking of US Greenies, I'm having trouble spotting Jill Stein on their website

    It's either terrible website navigation or the Party isn't too keen on her right now

    http://www.gp.org/
    Bernie stood in the by-election in Oxfordshire caused by Cameron getting off to spend more time with his bankers.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    I loved these public information films - some were really quite scary/graphic

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c23MFIKiVdE
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,328
    justin124 said:

    I don't see this happening at all. Had there been an official Tory candidate in Richmond I suspect UKIP would have stood too.They were never going to do well here and by technically standing aside the Tories gave UKIP the perfect excuse to do likewise.
    I also believe such a move would be counterproductive in that many former working class Labour voters have switched to UKIP precisely because they are NOT Tories. Any form of alliance or agreement with them would significantly reduce their appeal to such voters.

    I think you fail to see the gaping chasm of sensible one nation Toryism that the Conservatives hadnt been since about 2012, until now.

    Mrs May is a lot more popular in office than he could ever be...
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    :smiley:

    Henry Tudor
    Today:
    - block Thomas More
    - unfollow Anne Boleyn
    - hack Pope's password
    - troll monasteries
    - promote new C of E account
    - RT obesity
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,809
    Blue_rog said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Paris, thanks for that summary of the French left's preparations for the election next year.

    Mr. Patrick, cars are safer now than they've ever been. This daft policy would add an hour to the travelling time for a 140 mile journey, losing the economy an hour of someone working or spending money as they go on holiday.

    The taxpayer/Government is spending £50bn or so to cut 40 minutes off the travelling time from London to Birmingham, whilst NICE proposes a speed limit change to add more than 40 minutes to the travelling time from London to Birmingham.

    From what I remember, the 70mph speed limit was set just after the first part the M1 was completed and people were going up and down at over 100mph. The majority of cars were fitted with crossply tyres and were unsafe at those speeds, hence the 70mph limit. Now, Radials are the norm and these are safe at much higher speeds.
    I agree.

    It is nevertheless instructive to set the cruise control to 55 or 60 on a long journey once in a while, and notice the dramatically better fuel consumption.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Mortimer said:

    justin124 said:

    I don't see this happening at all. Had there been an official Tory candidate in Richmond I suspect UKIP would have stood too.They were never going to do well here and by technically standing aside the Tories gave UKIP the perfect excuse to do likewise.
    I also believe such a move would be counterproductive in that many former working class Labour voters have switched to UKIP precisely because they are NOT Tories. Any form of alliance or agreement with them would significantly reduce their appeal to such voters.

    I think you fail to see the gaping chasm of sensible one nation Toryism that the Conservatives hadnt been since about 2012, until now.

    Mrs May is a lot more popular in office than he could ever be...
    He? Are you referring to Cameron?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Oh my word

    SkyNews
    .@KarenDanczuk's brother has been found guilty of raping her as a child https://t.co/Jvx5ljkKXc
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,930
    NickPalmer said:

    Patrick said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It's a daily mail article... you're supposed to have your blood boiling afterwards.

    On the substance... variable speed limits rather than blanket speed limits to improve traffic flow seem a good idea.
    We already have variable speed limits - the electronic signs above motorway lanes impose reduced limits when there's a crash/congestion/rain/ice/etc. I'm 100% fine with that. But when it's clear and bright and empty 70 is just too slow. I lived in the Netherlands for years and drove a lot in Germany too - the Dutch 130KMH and German 'no limit but the cops'll pull you if you're driving like a twat' system is much much better than our 1960s nonsense.
    There aren't that many German motorways that are still unrestricted. But I do agree that having higher limits which are enforced (and I mean properly enforced, even with hidden cameras so we'd not think that we can play the system by slowing down in camera zones) would be better than the current "70, but hey, you can get away with +10%+2=79" hint. A former Chief Constable of Notts told me the unofficial limit that got you stopped was 85 in his county, but I have no idea if that's still the case.

    The other issue is pollution and energy saving. At very high speeds, cars use up petrol/diesel disproportionately faster, which is bad for both the air and the trade balance.
    The last time I was in US the speed limit was 50 on inter-states. I found it rather relaxing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,809
    edited December 2016
    justin124 said:

    I don't see this happening at all. Had there been an official Tory candidate in Richmond I suspect UKIP would have stood too.They were never going to do well here and by technically standing aside the Tories gave UKIP the perfect excuse to do likewise.
    I also believe such a move would be counterproductive in that many former working class Labour voters have switched to UKIP precisely because they are NOT Tories. Any form of alliance or agreement with them would significantly reduce their appeal to such voters.

    ...which of course is the same problem Labour and the LibDems have. If the LibDems stand down, a chunk of their support (probably including me right now) wouldn't transfer to Labour; in reverse this is less true, but Labour's backing would still be a mixed blessing for the LibDems, many of whose supporters chose them precisely because they are centre-left but without the undesirable features of the Labour Party.

    Mike has this right in the header - when there is an over-riding single issue in a election, these sorts of deals can work (as they have before, if you go far enough back into electoral history). In a truly "general" election, they don't.

    In by-elections, overriding issues are not uncommon. But it has been many decades since we had a single-issue General Election. That (i.e. the looming possibility) is the real story here?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,100
    rottenborough said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Patrick said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Patrick said:

    This makes my blood boil:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3988204/Crackdown-motorist-Health-watchdog-bids-cut-pollution-50mph-motorway-limits-speed-traps-new-congestion-zones.html

    We should set the motorway speed limit to 90 and then enforce it. Right now we all go at 80 or more and the police only pull over those doing 90 or so. It's a complete failure to respect and enforce the law. Because 70 is just too slow. These nannying NICE dogooders who think the main issue with our transport system is the health not, erm, transport speed and efficiency need to be replaced. Why do taxpayers have to fund this crap?

    It's a daily mail article... you're supposed to have your blood boiling afterwards.

    On the substance... variable speed limits rather than blanket speed limits to improve traffic flow seem a good idea.
    We already have variable speed limits - the electronic signs above motorway lanes impose reduced limits when there's a crash/congestion/rain/ice/etc. I'm 100% fine with that. But when it's clear and bright and empty 70 is just too slow. I lived in the Netherlands for years and drove a lot in Germany too - the Dutch 130KMH and German 'no limit but the cops'll pull you if you're driving like a twat' system is much much better than our 1960s nonsense.
    There aren't that many German motorways that are still unrestricted. But I do agree that having higher limits which are enforced (and I mean properly enforced, even with hidden cameras so we'd not think that we can play the system by slowing down in camera zones) would be better than the current "70, but hey, you can get away with +10%+2=79" hint. A former Chief Constable of Notts told me the unofficial limit that got you stopped was 85 in his county, but I have no idea if that's still the case.

    The other issue is pollution and energy saving. At very high speeds, cars use up petrol/diesel disproportionately faster, which is bad for both the air and the trade balance.
    The last time I was in US the speed limit was 50 on inter-states. I found it rather relaxing.
    Really ?

    50 is horrendously slow, though it is the de facto speed limit near where I live on the M1 !
    Sometimes I'll do 55ish in the slow lane, even when the limit is 70 when I'm not in a hurry. But at other times I'd appreciate the freedom to do 90.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,100
    Lib Dems telling at every polling station in Richmond apparently !

    Wonder if Zac has the same *ahem* ground game.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @afneil: Net migration in year to end-June rises to 335,000, of which 189,000 from EU (highest recorded)

    @SamCoatesTimes: Due to today's net migration figures, No10 told departments to use today to put out any other bad news. So watch: gov.uk/government/ann…
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Sam Coates
    Due to today's net migration figures, No10 told departments to use today to put out any other bad news. So watch: https://t.co/lgwRVCitga
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Would the Tories stand aside in a seat where UKIP was 2nd behind LAB

    No. That way lies the destruction of the party. It institutionalises coalitions over which the party has no control and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them. I have no time for these kind of tactical games, which the voters don't necessarily go along with (and if they do, they would in all probability have done it had candidates from both concerned parties stood).

    Stand, and compete, everywhere. Anything else is a betrayal of the cause and its supporters. If deals need to be done, do them afterwards, once the mandates are in.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DannyShawBBC: For the first time Romania tops the list of new migrants - 54,000 came to UK, followed by China and India.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Alison_McGovern: So @DavidDavisMP just admitted Government *is* considering paying EU for access to single market (in response to @WayneDavid_MP) #brexit
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    kle4 said:

    Chris_from_Paris said:

    FPT French Election - Official start of the left-wing primary

    The candidacies need to be presented between today and December 15.
    Eachcandidate from the socialist party (PS) needs the support of a fixed number of party MPs (19) or local councillors (66) or mayors (10) or mambers of the national executive (15).
    Representatives of small parties allied to the PS are directly accepted as candidates.

    Arnaud Montebourg and Benoit Hamon, both form the left-wing of the party and both former ministers of Hollande, have already officially deposited their supporters names and are officially candidates.
    Marie Noelle Lienemann (yet another left-wing member and former minister) should also get the support she needs. Gerard Filoche (from the most leftist faction) probably not.

    Francois de Rugy (Parti ecologiste), Jean-Luc Benhamias (Front democrate) and Pierre Larrouturou (Nouvelle donne), présidents of their respective micro-parties allied to the PS, wwill be directly accepted.

    Of all these declared candidates, only Montebourg is considered to have a chance.

    But the main suspense now is whether/when Hollande will announce his candidacy and if he will try to kill the primary. Valls would have to go through the primary anyway.

    My guess is that Hollande will announce his candidacy this weekend. It will look absurd if he tries to avoid the primary but it is by no means impossible.

    The challenge for any primary winner will be to deal with the 6 other candidates from the left: 3 far-left candidates (Arthaud, Poutou, Mélenchon), the Green (Jadot), the Radical (Pinel) and Macron (who still says he is left wing)

    That's a lot of left parties.
    That's France.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,809
    david_herdson said:


    ... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...

    I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCJLandale: David Davis tells MP the government would consider paying EU to get best possible access for UK goods & services in single market
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,809
    Pulpstar said:

    Lib Dems telling at every polling station in Richmond apparently !

    Wonder if Zac has the same *ahem* ground game.

    It is probably going to be like Bermondsey 1983; the only election I can remember being told to go away and come back later, as there was too much help and doing a sixth or seventh knock up mid-afternoon was annoying people more than getting any extra votes
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    Quite an interesting chart:

    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/804257130480074752
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,693
    I'm seruiosly think of stopping reading the Guardian. Theres' an article on their website suggesting Father Christmas isn't real.

    How VERY dare they!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,809
    OldKingCole said:

    I'm seruiosly think of stopping reading the Guardian. Theres' an article on their website suggesting Father Christmas isn't real.

    How VERY dare they!

    Grown ups move onto God; you still have to be good to get a present at the end.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,930
    PBers may be interested to know that in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election, there will be an indie running on a NHS and ‘Lincolnshire Lives Matter’ ticket.

    As there is a huge local row at the moment about Grantham hospital, will she get some traction a la the doctor from Kidderminster a few years ago?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,100
    I do hope Zac hasn't taken the Lib Dem threat too lightly, the winning team from round my manor (Mosborough, Tupton, Staveley) is down there...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Take Back Control !!

    @BBCJLandale: David Davis tells MPs the government wants to "replicate what we have" on justice and home affairs cooperation with EU post Brexit
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,100
    edited December 2016
    rottenborough said:

    PBers may be interested to know that in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election, there will be an indie running on a NHS and ‘Lincolnshire Lives Matter’ ticket.

    As there is a huge local row at the moment about Grantham hospital, will she get some traction a la the doctor from Kidderminster a few years ago?

    She is 15-2 with Paddy Power for 2nd w/o Tories.

    I have backed Labour 15-2 £10 (w/o Tories, PP), and Tories £152.57 @ 1.1632 (Smarkets, Win) here.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,539
    Scott_P said:

    @DannyShawBBC: For the first time Romania tops the list of new migrants - 54,000 came to UK, followed by China and India.

    Heh. My nanny, my cleaner, and my hairdresser are all Romanian. China is interesting though. Thought it was quite hard to migrate, and family connections are limited. Is it students?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Scott_P said:

    Take Back Control !!

    @BBCJLandale: David Davis tells MPs the government wants to "replicate what we have" on justice and home affairs cooperation with EU post Brexit

    Heisenberg's Brexit: Where it's impossible to know simultaneously whether we're in or out and whether we're integrating or separating.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,693
    IanB2 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    I'm seruiosly think of stopping reading the Guardian. Theres' an article on their website suggesting Father Christmas isn't real.

    How VERY dare they!

    Grown ups move onto God; you still have to be good to get a present at the end.
    Can't tell my grandchildren about God; that's far too unlikely!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    OldKingCole said:

    IanB2 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    I'm seruiosly think of stopping reading the Guardian. Theres' an article on their website suggesting Father Christmas isn't real.

    How VERY dare they!

    Grown ups move onto God; you still have to be good to get a present at the end.
    Can't tell my grandchildren about God; that's far too unlikely!
    Just don't let them see you getting into costume.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    edited December 2016
    Gardenwalker said:

    Scott_P said:

    @DannyShawBBC: For the first time Romania tops the list of new migrants - 54,000 came to UK, followed by China and India.

    Heh. My nanny, my cleaner, and my hairdresser are all Romanian. China is interesting though. Thought it was quite hard to migrate, and family connections are limited. Is it students?
    I would guess so. The reason for leaving students in the migration stats is that they should balance out in the end.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    IanB2 said:

    david_herdson said:


    ... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...

    I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already

    Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.

    - Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?

    - Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?

    - Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?

    Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,159
    edited December 2016
    This person thinks she's not a racist.
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/798839038325059584
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803593739117690880
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803613617564196864
    Is she:

    a) a self deluding, racist dimwit?

    b) a..och, why bother, let's just stick with a).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
    Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    edited December 2016
    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
    Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
    The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,693
    Theuniondivvie said:

    This person thinks she's not a racist.
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/798839038325059584
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803593739117690880
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803613617564196864
    Is she:

    a) a self deluding, racist dimwit?

    b) a..och, why bother, let's just stick with a).

    Wasn't Jesus a Palestinian. From the Middle East? And, come to that, St George?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,339
    Just back from telling for a quick cup of tea. Freezing! Brisk voting. My impression is that the turnout is likely to be higher than the 50% I was estimating. But that is based on one polling station and a particular time slot so caution.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,539
    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
    Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
    The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
    These numbers are so prone to misuse and confusion.

    Net migration is pretty much meaningless to me.

    What I want to know is,
    How many students are we welcoming, and where are they coming from?

    How many economic migrants are arriving here, and where from?

    How many family reunions?

    And how many cases of asylum?

    The four types of migration are completely different, have different push and pull factors, have different economic impacts, and would be seen as different I suspect by the majority of the public.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,339
    Pulpstar said:

    Lib Dems telling at every polling station in Richmond apparently !

    Wonder if Zac has the same *ahem* ground game.

    I think he has.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
    Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
    The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
    Yes that is misleading indeed.

    Presumably someone who comes to the UK and stays until they acquire citizenship before moving somewhere else would also be classed as an emigrating British citizen?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,736
    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
    Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
    The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
    Yes that is misleading indeed.

    Presumably someone who comes to the UK and stays until they acquire citizenship before moving somewhere else would also be classed as an emigrating British citizen?
    Yes. I think it's residency based though.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,159
    edited December 2016
    OldKingCole said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    This person thinks she's not a racist.
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/798839038325059584
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803593739117690880
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803613617564196864
    Is she:

    a) a self deluding, racist dimwit?

    b) a..och, why bother, let's just stick with a).

    Wasn't Jesus a Palestinian. From the Middle East? And, come to that, St George?
    I think that's pointed out to her in subsequent replies, to no avail.

    Ironically, as is so often the case with these warriors for the white British way of life, the fragrant Katie lives abroad in France.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,809
    edited December 2016
    david_herdson said:

    IanB2 said:

    david_herdson said:


    ... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...

    I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already

    Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.

    - Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?

    - Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?

    - Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?

    Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
    An unusually naïve reply from you, Mr Herdson. If you genuinely think that the parties put as much effort in everywhere, I suspect you are in a very small minority. As a voter I have lived in marginal seats and safe seats, and I can assure you that the difference in experience - not just at elections but between times as well - is utterly dramatic.

    Not to mention the never-ending quest for the marketing marginal swing-voter sweet spot, Basildon Man or Worcester Woman and all such nonsense
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,693
    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Lib Dems telling at every polling station in Richmond apparently !

    Wonder if Zac has the same *ahem* ground game.

    I think he has.
    So, no support from the Conservative Association?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,539
    Theuniondivvie said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    This person thinks she's not a racist.
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/798839038325059584
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803593739117690880
    https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/803613617564196864
    Is she:

    a) a self deluding, racist dimwit?

    b) a..och, why bother, let's just stick with a).

    Wasn't Jesus a Palestinian. From the Middle East? And, come to that, St George?
    I think that's pointed out to her in subsequent replies.

    Ironically, as is so often the case with these warriors for the white British way of life, the fragrant Katie lives abroad in France.
    Why do we care what some non-entity spouts on Twitter? You might as well broadcast live from the Dog and Duck.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    Gardenwalker said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
    Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
    The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
    These numbers are so prone to misuse and confusion.

    Net migration is pretty much meaningless to me.

    What I want to know is,
    How many students are we welcoming, and where are they coming from?

    How many economic migrants are arriving here, and where from?

    How many family reunions?

    And how many cases of asylum?

    The four types of migration are completely different, have different push and pull factors, have different economic impacts, and would be seen as different I suspect by the majority of the public.
    Figures 5 and 6 are the ones for you:

    https://t.co/ctHj8W1Q3g

    The number of work related immigrants who don't have a job already lined up is rising.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,539
    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    williamglenn said:

    tlg86 said:

    Quite an interesting chart:

    Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
    Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
    Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
    The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
    Yes that is misleading indeed.

    Presumably someone who comes to the UK and stays until they acquire citizenship before moving somewhere else would also be classed as an emigrating British citizen?
    Yes. I think it's residency based though.
    There ought to be an independent body for migration analysis, equiv to the OBR.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,736
    IanB2 said:

    david_herdson said:

    IanB2 said:

    david_herdson said:


    ... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...

    I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already

    Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.

    - Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?

    - Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?

    - Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?

    Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
    An unusually naïve reply from you, Mr Herdson. If you genuinely think that the parties put as much effort in everywhere, I suspect you are in a very small minority. As a voter I have lived in marginal seats and safe seats, and I can assure you that the difference in experience - not just at elections but between times as well - is utterly dramatic.

    Not to mention the never-ending quest for the marketing marginal swing-voter sweet spot, Basildon Man or Worcester Woman and all such nonsense
    Well the point that David is making about short termism leads to SLAB in Scotland. Look at how badly Labour treated their core voters for so many years, once a viable alternative came along SLAB were destroyed. If UKIP becomes a viable alternative for the WWC in the North then Labour will be worried there. If the Lib Dems become a viable alternative for soft-remainers then the Tories will need to worry in the SE and SW London.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,539
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    david_herdson said:

    IanB2 said:

    david_herdson said:


    ... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...

    I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already

    Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.

    - Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?

    - Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?

    - Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?

    Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
    An unusually naïve reply from you, Mr Herdson. If you genuinely think that the parties put as much effort in everywhere, I suspect you are in a very small minority. As a voter I have lived in marginal seats and safe seats, and I can assure you that the difference in experience - not just at elections but between times as well - is utterly dramatic.

    Not to mention the never-ending quest for the marketing marginal swing-voter sweet spot, Basildon Man or Worcester Woman and all such nonsense
    Well the point that David is making about short termism leads to SLAB in Scotland. Look at how badly Labour treated their core voters for so many years, once a viable alternative came along SLAB were destroyed. If UKIP becomes a viable alternative for the WWC in the North then Labour will be worried there. If the Lib Dems become a viable alternative for soft-remainers then the Tories will need to worry in the SE and SW London.
    PR simply moves the complacency from regional cronyism to party HQ cronyism.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025