On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
But what works in the Capital isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example the Tube is an absolute marvel — the Metro up here doesn't even come remotely close. Can you imagine how awful London would be if everyone drove everywhere? There just has to be a balance.
The issue with public transport is always one of wait time - waiting for the train, waiting for the connection...
Once that gets beyond a few minutes, cars become the preferred option.
The changes really are the killer. If you live in the centre of Birmingham then the fastest way to get to the centre of Leeds is the train. If you live half way down a spoke heading to somewhere half way down a spoke of another hub then the car so much easier and pleasant.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
For the overwhelming majority of voters better roads for them to drive on will improve their transportation more.
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
Yes but if we vote for Labour we aren't voting for your style of North East lefty.
It's London centric lefties, with North East Pidcock who fits in with them that gets the attention and dominate the agenda.
What significant car loving North East lefties set the agenda nowadays?
I don't really have any idea what Pidcock's transport agenda is to be honest. She apparently lives in Lanchester in Co. Durham and it's pretty much impossible to get anywhere quickly from Lanchester without a car.
Yes but who prominent from North East Labour speaks up on behalf of drivers? Speaks up on behalf of making road transportation better? Views driving as a good thing not an evil only for where public transport isn't available?
Anyone?
Don't have time to talk about that mate — gotta discuss Palestine instead.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
The EU AVAS directive means BEVs have to emit an artificial noise of at least 56db up to speeds of 20km/hr. The BMW i4 had its noise custom synthesised the composer Hans Zimmer who's done loads of films I can't remember but am sure are notable.
They could insert subtle little themes (as is Zimmer’s wont) as expensive options, Ritt der Wälkuren for yer Bayern beast, Nimrod for the Jeg.
The curious thing about the Tories implementing UKIP or Labour policies they previously bitterly opposed or spending money like it's water is that none of their traditional supporters seem to care at all. They seem quite happy. Weird.
It's because the Conservatives primary motivation is winning and rubbing their opponents faces in it.
They laugh at their opposition's principles and continue to remain in power.
What is the point of power for if it means doing things that you were against five minutes ago?
The Thatcherite right is clearly dead in British politics.
Despite the name, the Conservative Party is not some kind of historical re-enactment society; it adapts its tactics and strategy to the current circumstances while always holding to its most fundamental priorities: to keep socialists out of power, and to conserve as much as can be conserved while achieving that goal. To have offered the nation a purely Thatcherite economic prospectus in the context of 2019 would have been the best way to propel Jeremy Corbyn into power, and as such would have been a profoundly un-Conservative thing to do.
Labour, by contrast, is remarkably backward-looking. The left look back to Attlee as their supreme model; the right look not only to Blairism for victory, but as Lord Adonis asserted just a few days ago, to Blair himself (!). The party of progress and solidarity is paradoxically stuck in the past and fatally riven; Conservatives stick together and look to the future.
Yes. But you're dressing up vice as a virtue.
What's good for the Conservatives is good for Britain because Labour are bad for Britain, so the Conservatives sacred duty is to win elections and keep out Labour who are very bad for Britain. Therefore whatever the Conservatives do to win elections and stay in power is not only good for them, it is by definition extremely good for Britain.
This is the logic of the ultra partisan. And it's impeccable on its own terms.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
In other words, it's just one of many ways in which London is out of line with the rest of the country, and Labour (and the Conservatives, for that matter) would therefore be ill-advised to set national policy based on what works in the Capital.
But what works in the Capital isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example the Tube is an absolute marvel — the Metro up here doesn't even come remotely close. Can you imagine how awful London would be if everyone drove everywhere? There just has to be a balance.
The issue with public transport is always one of wait time - waiting for the train, waiting for the connection...
Once that gets beyond a few minutes, cars become the preferred option.
The changes really are the killer. If you live in the centre of Birmingham then the fastest way to get to the centre of Leeds is the train. If you live half way down a spoke heading to somewhere half way down a spoke of another hub then the car so much easier and pleasant.
It's why if you are in first class (or fly often) you get lounge access to make the wait bearable. That isn't (of course) an option for a hub and spoke bus network where 2 buses are required to get from home to work and back.
That requires a very frequent bus service with limited wait periods...
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
For the overwhelming majority of voters better roads for them to drive on will improve their transportation more.
It's not an either/or though. Improving roads is good for cars AND buses, for example.
Because that is inconsistent with P T's short term requirements. I like a nice view, and my horses have to live somewhere.
He won't be happy until the North Pennines AONB looks like this.
I'd rather more land looked like this.
Could you at least pick something that looks nice and is at least vaguely symmetrical - on the long walk to Aldi / M&S we go past a new estate and some of the houses are built with windows that emphasis that all the rooms on one side are about 7ft wide max.
It’ll go great with our chlorinated chicken and steroidal Oz beef.
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
My goodness, but Mark clearly enjoyed writing this one.
Res ipsa loquitur....
I suspect I will have more fun writing the follow-up piece: where the hell does Labour draw its battle lines for the next election?
Thank you for an excellent article. However, prior to the issue of where to draw battle lines are other pressing questions:
What are the simple retail policies, and what is the vision, which Labour can offer, and do it much better than and different from the Tories? ATM I can think of no positive distinguishing features - not a single one.
Where is the leadership team that can do battle with Boris at all, let alone where.
You can win the battle for integrity, truth, justice and kindness but all to no avail. It's Boris you have to beat.
They need some clear red water between themselves and the blue filth. There is definitely room for some real policy creativity here because, exterior to the undead wing of the tory party, nobody gives a fuck how anything is going to be paid for anymore.
So long as the annoying notion that Tory spending-like-drunken-sailor* policies are somehow less scary than Labour ones can be killed off.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
One thing that should be talked about is the move to electric cars changing the dynamic of what is most environmentally friendly.
When I lived in Wiltshire, an enterprising chap proposed that, since the ridership on the buses was very low, he could offer a better service (more frequent) with Priuses and less CO2 emissions.
Is there anyone who doesnt think the civil service needs reform? Cummings is hardly unique on that, in fact very mainstream. The question is if the best way to reform the civil service is by putting a few weirdos and misfits in front of 100 tv screens on a giant wall and making them all powerful?
After all, Cumming's Hard Rain largely turned into water off a duck's back.
Everyone knows that Yes, Minister tells you everything you need to know about British government. But there's a subtle difference between the book and the TV series.
The final TV episode was The Tangled Web, where Hacker gets one over on Sir Humphrey. But in the novelisation, the final episode is The National Education service. The end (narrated as Hacker's diaries) is quite poignant;
I took a deep breath. "Yes," I said quietly. My plans were turning to dust. Like all my plans. Suddenly I saw, with a real clarity that I'd never enjoyed before, that although I might win the occasional policy victory, or be indulged with a few scraps from the table, noting fundamental was ever ever going to change. Humphrey was now in the best of humour. I heard his voice, as if in the distance. "Prime Minister? Prime Minister? Are you all right?" I focused on him. "Yes". "Excellent. Then shall we continue with the agendum?" "Agendum?" I smiled. All the fight had gone out of me. "No, Humphrey, we have no agendum any more. Meeting declared closed. All right?" "Yes Prime Minister." He smiled at me with sympathy. He could see that at last I understood.
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
One thing that should be talked about is the move to electric cars changing the dynamic of what is most environmentally friendly.
When I lived in Wiltshire, an enterprising chap proposed that, since the ridership on the buses was very low, he could offer a better service (more frequent) with Priuses and less CO2 emissions.
He proposal was rejected "because buses".
Well that seems very silly, but it's hard to comment fully without knowing the full details. I doubt it was as simple as that!
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
For the overwhelming majority of voters better roads for them to drive on will improve their transportation more.
It's not an either/or though. Improving roads is good for cars AND buses, for example.
Of course! But the anti car zealots don't think about that.
What gets me the most is the zealots who eg suggest over £100bn on HS2 is good to level up the north. When the overwhelming majority of us drive.
If we can spend £100bn on new rail links, let alone whatever crossrail etc cost then I can only wonder what £100bn spent building new motorways could have done for transportation in this country?
But those setting the agenda like to pretend we are all just waiting for trains.
That makes me uneasy. None of the explanations that spring to mind are innocent.
What's the problem? Isn't this part of her job?
Would you prefer she sat in her ivory tower and had no idea what deportations look like in practice, and the implications on the lives of the people targeted?
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
One thing that should be talked about is the move to electric cars changing the dynamic of what is most environmentally friendly.
When I lived in Wiltshire, an enterprising chap proposed that, since the ridership on the buses was very low, he could offer a better service (more frequent) with Priuses and less CO2 emissions.
He proposal was rejected "because buses".
That was Uber's entire business model - the issue is that drivers add inconvenience as they can only work x hours a day and are blooming expensive.
Uber's entire aim was to be in prime position as the switch from humans driving to automated driving occurred.
Then everyone discovered it not a 90%/10% problem but a 99.99%/0.01% problem and automation is nowhere near where everyone hoped it would be.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
One thing that should be talked about is the move to electric cars changing the dynamic of what is most environmentally friendly.
When I lived in Wiltshire, an enterprising chap proposed that, since the ridership on the buses was very low, he could offer a better service (more frequent) with Priuses and less CO2 emissions.
He proposal was rejected "because buses".
Well that seems very silly, but it's hard to comment fully without knowing the full details. I doubt it was as simple as that!
The decision was taken that only buses could be used for bus routes. So they continued to run an ancient bus that rattled you to death, while spewing out a black fog, once every 2 hours.
I rather suspect that it was down to ensuring that the right people got the contract.
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
Can someone explain to me what "Netflix following Ferrari" entails?
Netflix have camera crews who follow each team for a weekend - it adds complexity and annoyance to the teams who have cameras pointing at them and questions being asked so it's a massive distraction - which means mistakes often occur that might not otherwise occur.
The curious thing about the Tories implementing UKIP or Labour policies they previously bitterly opposed or spending money like it's water is that none of their traditional supporters seem to care at all. They seem quite happy. Weird.
It's because the Conservatives primary motivation is winning and rubbing their opponents faces in it.
They laugh at their opposition's principles and continue to remain in power.
What is the point of power for if it means doing things that you were against five minutes ago?
The Thatcherite right is clearly dead in British politics.
Despite the name, the Conservative Party is not some kind of historical re-enactment society; it adapts its tactics and strategy to the current circumstances while always holding to its most fundamental priorities: to keep socialists out of power, and to conserve as much as can be conserved while achieving that goal. To have offered the nation a purely Thatcherite economic prospectus in the context of 2019 would have been the best way to propel Jeremy Corbyn into power, and as such would have been a profoundly un-Conservative thing to do.
Labour, by contrast, is remarkably backward-looking. The left look back to Attlee as their supreme model; the right look not only to Blairism for victory, but as Lord Adonis asserted just a few days ago, to Blair himself (!). The party of progress and solidarity is paradoxically stuck in the past and fatally riven; Conservatives stick together and look to the future.
Yes. But you're dressing up vice as a virtue.
What's good for the Conservatives is good for Britain because Labour are bad for Britain, so the Conservatives sacred duty is to win elections and keep out Labour who are very bad for Britain. Therefore whatever the Conservatives do to win elections and stay in power is not only good for them, it is by definition extremely good for Britain.
This is the logic of the ultra partisan. And it's impeccable on its own terms.
That is a most excellent summary indeed, and pretty much where the nation is right now.
Here's the Labour version:
What's good for Labour is good for Britain because the Tories are bad for Britain, so Labour's sacred duty is to win elections and keep out the Tories who are very bad for Britain. Unless that means compromising one micron with Blairites/Brownites/Soft Left/Blue Labour/Corbynites/Starmerites/reality, in which case our faction must maintain absolute ideological purity and if the Tories get in again then who cares anyway at least they'll keep our taxes down...
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
My goodness, that's some breathtaking condescension, not to mention an unexpectedly positive assumption about the intellectual superiority of the rich. Don't let the Red Wallies and Class Traitories hear you talking about them like that, or they might just go and ... oh.
It snot condescension. It is if accompanied by guffawing but in my case there's none of that. It's simply my belief that many working class people are mistaken in their belief that Tory governments and Brexits and Boris Johnsons and ERGs will make them better off than Labour governments and Single Markets and Keir Starmers and TUCs.
Tell you what IS condescension though. Senior civil servants sat around in meetings making casual little jokes in Latin to exclude the 'wrong sort' from influence and career progression. You'd never do that, would you?
When I get feedback, one of the things [staff from disadvantaged backgrounds] raise is the degree to which the conversation is all about politics and about people on Twitter that everyone's following," civil servant Alistair tells the researchers.
"You know, the majority of the country are not reading these tweets. Probably the entire audience for this tweet that we're discussing at the moment is in this room!"
Amen!
Indeed. But that's a slightly off piste point. The main thrust of the findings is to confirm that our old friend Class Privilege is alive and well in the Civil Service.
So Cummings was right then, that massive CS reform is needed?
So long as it includes the class angle. If it doesn't - waste of time.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
One thing that should be talked about is the move to electric cars changing the dynamic of what is most environmentally friendly.
When I lived in Wiltshire, an enterprising chap proposed that, since the ridership on the buses was very low, he could offer a better service (more frequent) with Priuses and less CO2 emissions.
He proposal was rejected "because buses".
That was Uber's entire business model - the issue is that drivers add inconvenience as they can only work x hours a day and are blooming expensive.
Uber's entire aim was to be in prime position as the switch from humans driving to automated driving occurred.
Then everyone discovered it not a 90%/10% problem but a 99.99%/0.01% problem and automation is nowhere near where everyone hoped it would be.
Nope - the idea was, IIRC, that he would run a more frequent, but still timed service. An interesting extra was a proposal to have a call-button at the bus stop and get a fill-in service, if required.
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
Can someone explain to me what "Netflix following Ferrari" entails?
Netflix have camera crews who follow each team for a weekend - it adds complexity and annoyance to the teams who have cameras pointing at them and questions being asked so it's a massive distraction - which means mistakes often occur that might not otherwise occur.
Thanks. Do they broadcast this live or broadcast in the near future - or is it for a Season documentary?
That makes me uneasy. None of the explanations that spring to mind are innocent.
What's the problem? Isn't this part of her job?
Would you prefer she sat in her ivory tower and had no idea what deportations look like in practice, and the implications on the lives of the people targeted?
Our local councillor wrote an excellent letter to his constituents before his re-election, and I think there was a mention that he had attended at early morning police raids as part of his work. So, absolutely Priti Patel is entitled to do that - I just hope she draws the right lessons from that experience (whatever that may be, having never attended an immigration raid myself, I will not try to define what nuance is to be drawn from one).
Great article but it contains one of my most pedantic pet peeves. In the novel Scoop "Up to a point Lord Copper" doesn't literally mean "Up to a point". It was the strongest possible way his assistant could disagree. So in fact the phrase means "Not at all". I'll get my coat...
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
Can someone explain to me what "Netflix following Ferrari" entails?
Netflix have camera crews who follow each team for a weekend - it adds complexity and annoyance to the teams who have cameras pointing at them and questions being asked so it's a massive distraction - which means mistakes often occur that might not otherwise occur.
Thanks. Do they broadcast this live or broadcast in the near future - or is it for a Season documentary?
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
Can someone explain to me what "Netflix following Ferrari" entails?
Netflix have camera crews who follow each team for a weekend - it adds complexity and annoyance to the teams who have cameras pointing at them and questions being asked so it's a massive distraction - which means mistakes often occur that might not otherwise occur.
Thanks. Do they broadcast this live or broadcast in the near future - or is it for a Season documentary?
That makes me uneasy. None of the explanations that spring to mind are innocent.
What's the problem? Isn't this part of her job?
Would you prefer she sat in her ivory tower and had no idea what deportations look like in practice, and the implications on the lives of the people targeted?
Hope she turns up for a publicity photo the next time her Zollgenzschutz turn up in Glasgow.
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
I'm fine with that, as I'm on at 60 (and a bit better than that for Sainz) for pole. If the Ferrari speed is real, then half that would be decent odds.
That's my sense too. It's the way to go imo. I hope she gets the nod.
Stop the rot, turn the corner, light the fuse, take flight.
Right idea, but you're thinking too short term. Parachute Euan Blair into every by-election until he wins a seat and start grooming him as party leader. To take over after Starmer's cleared out a few of the more objectionable wing and then gone slightly backwards (seat-wise) in 2024.
Imaginative. But I don't share the desire of some for Blair2. The 90s were a different world. For me, 2017 is more relevant. Keep the unplugged, unapologetic spirit of that manifesto & campaign but modernize the policy platform. Then if Starmer can't sell it, replace him with someone more streetwise and vibey.
Yes, I was (obviously) being facetious. You need Blair's abilities back, not his surname.
Although, I was also making a wider point about how strange I find Labour's occasional dalliance with dynastic legacy (eg B&S) and how poorly it sits with a party that's supposed to be vehemently against inherited privilege.
Abilities, yes. Policies and positioning, no.
Picking Leadbetter would hardly be an example of dynastic inherited privilege! Nor of sentimentality for that matter. It would be based on hard-headed calculation of electoral appeal. The right candidate for Time & Place. The person with the best chance of winning. And, as it happens, with a good CV.
But let's see if they do pick her. Maybe they won't. Seems a no-brainer to me but perhaps I'm missing something.
That makes me uneasy. None of the explanations that spring to mind are innocent.
What's the problem? Isn't this part of her job?
Would you prefer she sat in her ivory tower and had no idea what deportations look like in practice, and the implications on the lives of the people targeted?
Hope she turns up for a publicity photo the next time her Zollgenzschutz turn up in Glasgow.
Considering this wasn't an immigration raid, it was a raid on people smuggling gangsters, do you object to them being arrested?
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
I've opposed Yang from the start, so how have been quite offside as he went very short (as low as 1.21 at one point) and see he is now back to 2.2, which puts me about flat. It seems to be Yang head to head vs Adams. Adams is the candidate with better local ties, small lead in polls and with upwards momentum so any reason why he is not odds on?
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
What a fantastically well observed point.
Do you think a Labour government would make the likes of JOB poorer?
He's the sort of luvvie I'd imagine has been caught up with the the Tories clamping down on tax evasion IR35 etc.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Jeez I try to ignore you but only the most self regarding patronising twat could have written this *and* believe what he's written.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
What a fantastically well observed point.
Do you think a Labour government would make the likes of JOB poorer?
He's the sort of luvvie I'd imagine has been caught up with the the Tories clamping down on tax evasion IR35 etc.
I think he's great entertainment. Like Polly, Laurence Fox, etc.
And his tax affairs had better be whiter than white so no I don't think he would have been caught up but you never know.
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
I'm fine with that, as I'm on at 60 (and a bit better than that for Sainz) for pole. If the Ferrari speed is real, then half that would be decent odds.
They are a good two or three seconds off the pace at the moment, so it’s difficult to tell. Each session is quicker than the previous one, as rubber goes down on the track and the drivers get more familiar with the place.
I've opposed Yang from the start, so how have been quite offside as he went very short (as low as 1.21 at one point) and see he is now back to 2.2, which puts me about flat. It seems to be Yang head to head vs Adams. Adams is the candidate with better local ties, small lead in polls and with upwards momentum so any reason why he is not odds on?
Monaco... Sainz looking very quick on the medium tyres in FP1.
In contrast to his Ferrari team mate, who needs a new engine!
Gearbox - but that is still a part that you can only have x of a year.
BBC website said engine. If it’s a new gearbox, that’s a five place grid drop (which a new engine wouldn’t be).
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
Looking on twitter
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
The Netflix series is awesome, if only that it’s got my wife and her friends interested in F1
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
In other news (again from twitter)
so let’s recap -mclaren has a celebratory livery -williams is celebrating 750 races -ferrari is being followed by netflix
Can someone explain to me what "Netflix following Ferrari" entails?
Netflix have camera crews who follow each team for a weekend - it adds complexity and annoyance to the teams who have cameras pointing at them and questions being asked so it's a massive distraction - which means mistakes often occur that might not otherwise occur.
Thanks. Do they broadcast this live or broadcast in the near future - or is it for a Season documentary?
It's usually released March the following year.
It has the advantage that the teams are somewhat more free to speak, given they know the season will be over before the footage gets shown. Even if their editing is terrible, for those of us who actually watch the season in progress.
Mr. B, think it is, or sandbagging from the big two?
Certainly Mercedes weren't going flat out. But at those odds, Ferrari just has to have some sort of a chance, not be the quickest. And Monaco gives them that.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
Because the housing market doesn't play to money currently?
Currently people can't afford to buy a home, with or without a view.
Liberalise the housing market and it will be easier to buy a home, but maybe harder to buy a view. So which is more important: being able to buy a house, or buy a view?
PS this already happens in many countries without a draconian planning regime. Communities can buy the fields near them then let them to farmers for peppercorn rents. That way they can only be developed if the community agrees to sell and if the community agrees to sell the community gets the income from selling.
I'm sure you have a point. Our planning laws could be improved. It's the badging you need to work on. Like "defund the police" your slogan is not a good choice.
Everyone "buying their own view" sounds appalling. Visions of wealthy people gazing forever upon rolling fields, softly tinkling fountains, swans gliding gracefully across tranquil waters, whilst the poor look out at somebody peeing against a brutalist, graffiti-covered wall.
That's how it is now. Our goal has to be to mitigate this, not reinforce it.
Jeez I try to ignore you but only the most self regarding patronising twat could have written this *and* believe what he's written.
I have to say that you’re extremely shit at ignoring him. Perhaps get a room and have a Women In Love style wrassle off to settle things once and for all?
I’m open to converting to electric when my very efficient combo eventually dies, as long as I can continue to cook on a gas hob.
Electric hobs are absolutely shit. Conventional, induction, all universally shit. No wonder professional kitchens all use gas.
I used to think the same, but our house had an induction hob when we moved in and I'm not sure I'd switch back to gas now. Heats as quick as gas (faster, I'd say). Smooth hob for cleaning (and it's basically impossible to burn spillages on). The hob itself only gets hot from contact with the saucepan and cools down very quickly, so it's safer for children.
Bit of a problem if you want to char something over a gas flame though!
I've had many representations along these lines – however, I have used induction plenty of times. Given that I can't just look at the flame to immediately tell how hot it is, I decree it as shit, despite the fact that it's notionally 'quicker'.
Cooking on gas is just more visceral.
I remember looking a right tit in a hostel in Stockholm in 2008 or so, trying to cook dinner. Fancy looking hob, everything in Swedish. I turned it on, I thought, but no visual feedback. Tried wafting my hand over the hob I thought should be hot, but nothing. Very confused. Eventually another guest came over and explained what was going on.
Several of our pans don't work on our induction hob. At first we thought it was the hob, until we tried the right pan.
Yes, that's another downside of this frankly shit excuse for a proper gas hob – all the great pans you have collected over the years at great expense. Guess what? They not longer work.
Jeez I try to ignore you but only the most self regarding patronising twat could have written this *and* believe what he's written.
I have to say that you’re extremely shit at ignoring him. Perhaps get a room and have a Women In Love style wrassle off?
That is true. I will try harder. But imagine @HYUFD explaining to you time and again the minutiae of Scottish independence politics and the associated invasion plan. Near-impossible to ignore, right?
Mr. B, think it is, or sandbagging from the big two?
Certainly Mercedes weren't going flat out. But at those odds, Ferrari just has to have some sort of a chance, not be the quickest. And Monaco gives them that.
25 or 30/1 might be fair value ?
Could be P1 glory runs though. Ferrari have form with that tactic as well and Monaco is a big race for them.
I've opposed Yang from the start, so how have been quite offside as he went very short (as low as 1.21 at one point) and see he is now back to 2.2, which puts me about flat. It seems to be Yang head to head vs Adams. Adams is the candidate with better local ties, small lead in polls and with upwards momentum so any reason why he is not odds on?
They haven't had a debate yet ?
2 debates so far and 2 to come according to wiki, although NY times reporting wikis 2nd as the 1st debate. Surprisingly little coverage on 538.
Though 'Cyber Ninjas' makes an interesting change from PwC or KPMG...
...The volunteers only recounted if their tally sheets had three or more errors — a threshold they stuck to, no matter how many ballots a stack contained, whether it was 50 or 100. This allowed for a shocking amount of error. Some table managers told the counters to go back and recount when there were too many errors; other table managers just instructed the counters to fix their “math mistakes.” At no point did anyone track how many ballots they were processing at their station, to ensure that none got added or lost during handling....
The determination that a folded ballot paper is 'suspicious' is just bizarre.
Labour might win Batley but heading into a pub and asking "Will you be voting for Jo Cox's sister" - which is about what the ConHome chap did is going to elicit a bias response. Most voters will have no idea who she is.
Here's an idea, instead of creating yet another culture war between cars/trains/buses (I mean WTF – these are all things with wheels), we should have a vision of a proper integrated transport system, with great roads, great railways and great bus networks. I've said before, it's horses for courses: I own a big Audi. But if I'm going into town, I take the train. I get about in town via the Tube and if I'm going out on the piss locally, I take the excellent bus. Long journeys point to point? It's the car.
So Cummings was right then, that massive CS reform is needed?
Is there anyone who doesnt think the civil service needs reform? Cummings is hardly unique on that, in fact very mainstream. The question is if the best way to reform the civil service is by putting a few weirdos and misfits in front of 100 tv screens on a giant wall and making them all powerful?
The other thing Cummings was keen on is having political appointments run things. IMO that's a mistake, we benefit a lot from having a neutral civil service that serves successive govts and gives them impartial advice.... rather than say the US system where everyone senior changes jobs with a new administration and a bunch of the people are offered jobs because they are big donors/influential in the party.
Just called my GP surgery. Apparently "2nd jabs" for those who had their 1st booked via their GP are now also handled through the online booking system. FFS — when were they going to tell me?
If I hadn't asked, I'd still be waiting for a call in 4 weeks time.
That's odd. I had my second jab booked for 7 June via the online system. But last week I got a phone message out of the blue from GP surgery offering me an earlier jab, this Saturday at the GP surgery. I took up the offer and I'm now booked in for Saturday.
I think there is now a centralised point - the NHS system, which GPs have access to when needing to fill up their slots.
I think there has been poor comms about this. My mother in law was in danger of falling through the cracks until we intervened.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
Because the housing market doesn't play to money currently?
Currently people can't afford to buy a home, with or without a view.
Liberalise the housing market and it will be easier to buy a home, but maybe harder to buy a view. So which is more important: being able to buy a house, or buy a view?
PS this already happens in many countries without a draconian planning regime. Communities can buy the fields near them then let them to farmers for peppercorn rents. That way they can only be developed if the community agrees to sell and if the community agrees to sell the community gets the income from selling.
I'm sure you have a point. Our planning laws could be improved. It's the badging you need to work on. Like "defund the police" your slogan is not a good choice.
Everyone "buying their own view" sounds appalling. Visions of wealthy people gazing forever upon rolling fields, softly tinkling fountains, swans gliding gracefully across tranquil waters, whilst the poor look out at somebody peeing against a brutalist, graffiti-covered wall.
That's how it is now. Our goal has to be to mitigate this, not reinforce it.
The point is my vision is that everyone ought to be able to buy their own home.
Views are secondary to that. If I have a pretty neighbour, I don't get to demand to view her, that's creepy. Keeping views of your neighbours land is up to them surely, its not yours? Most important is getting people able to get their own home - beyond that is bonus.
Mr. B, think it is, or sandbagging from the big two?
Certainly Mercedes weren't going flat out. But at those odds, Ferrari just has to have some sort of a chance, not be the quickest. And Monaco gives them that.
25 or 30/1 might be fair value ?
Could be P1 glory runs though. Ferrari have form with that tactic as well and Monaco is a big race for them.
It could - but they were also genuinely quick in S3 in Catalunya. Slow corners suit their car.
Lol, Rhodes doesn't fall. Oriel College decline to do so because of expense and regulatory concerns, especially given that the culture secretary has an effective veto over its removal now.
Expect Twitter go go mental over it, I wonder whether Labour will fall into this trap as well or if they'll manage to sidestep it by not saying anything. We know the Tories will celebrate it especially given that Oriel have cited regulatory issues as the major reason to not do it.
Though 'Cyber Ninjas' makes an interesting change from PwC or KPMG...
...The volunteers only recounted if their tally sheets had three or more errors — a threshold they stuck to, no matter how many ballots a stack contained, whether it was 50 or 100. This allowed for a shocking amount of error. Some table managers told the counters to go back and recount when there were too many errors; other table managers just instructed the counters to fix their “math mistakes.” At no point did anyone track how many ballots they were processing at their station, to ensure that none got added or lost during handling....
The determination that a folded ballot paper is 'suspicious' is just bizarre.
Not bizarre at all. The objective is to show the election was suspicious, that can only be done by determinations like that.
Mr. B, think it is, or sandbagging from the big two?
Certainly Mercedes weren't going flat out. But at those odds, Ferrari just has to have some sort of a chance, not be the quickest. And Monaco gives them that.
25 or 30/1 might be fair value ?
Could be P1 glory runs though. Ferrari have form with that tactic as well and Monaco is a big race for them.
It could - but they were also genuinely quick in S3 in Catalunya. Slow corners suit their car.
True, I think 60/1 is a good value loser. Possibly a good trade if Sainz tops the time sheets in Q1 or Q2.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
Take it as a compliment 😜
But I'm not that atypical for "the left" outside of London and that bubble. All of my "left" and "centre left" friends and colleagues in the North East love cars. Public transport is used exclusively when drinking.
The issue is, that many politicians of the left spend a disproportionate amount of the time talking about buses, trains, and disincentivising car use. Mainly because they’re all from London or other large cities.
To the vast majority of the country, including yourself, the car is the primary mode of transport, and the constant talk of buses, trains and taxes on cars is alienating.
You're right to an extent, but even though the car is my primary mode of transport, better public transport in my area is still good for me. More options is always better.
One thing that should be talked about is the move to electric cars changing the dynamic of what is most environmentally friendly.
When I lived in Wiltshire, an enterprising chap proposed that, since the ridership on the buses was very low, he could offer a better service (more frequent) with Priuses and less CO2 emissions.
He proposal was rejected "because buses".
Well that seems very silly, but it's hard to comment fully without knowing the full details. I doubt it was as simple as that!
Wiltshire is unbelievably rural and no-one uses the buses. I think it changed when it became free for oaps.
Lol, Rhodes doesn't fall. Oriel College decline to do so because of expense and regulatory concerns, especially given that the culture secretary has an effective veto over its removal now.
Expect Twitter go go mental over it, I wonder whether Labour will fall into this trap as well or if they'll manage to sidestep it by not saying anything. We know the Tories will celebrate it especially given that Oriel have cited regulatory issues as the major reason to not do it.
What was the point of all the independent review...they should have just stood up from the start and said no.
I've opposed Yang from the start, so how have been quite offside as he went very short (as low as 1.21 at one point) and see he is now back to 2.2, which puts me about flat. It seems to be Yang head to head vs Adams. Adams is the candidate with better local ties, small lead in polls and with upwards momentum so any reason why he is not odds on?
They haven't had a debate yet ?
2 debates so far and 2 to come according to wiki, although NY times reporting wikis 2nd as the 1st debate. Surprisingly little coverage on 538.
Jeez I try to ignore you but only the most self regarding patronising twat could have written this *and* believe what he's written.
I have to say that you’re extremely shit at ignoring him. Perhaps get a room and have a Women In Love style wrassle off to settle things once and for all?
They can have a melon-off if another pb.com meetup ever happens.
I’m open to converting to electric when my very efficient combo eventually dies, as long as I can continue to cook on a gas hob.
Electric hobs are absolutely shit. Conventional, induction, all universally shit. No wonder professional kitchens all use gas.
I used to think the same, but our house had an induction hob when we moved in and I'm not sure I'd switch back to gas now. Heats as quick as gas (faster, I'd say). Smooth hob for cleaning (and it's basically impossible to burn spillages on). The hob itself only gets hot from contact with the saucepan and cools down very quickly, so it's safer for children.
Bit of a problem if you want to char something over a gas flame though!
I've had many representations along these lines – however, I have used induction plenty of times. Given that I can't just look at the flame to immediately tell how hot it is, I decree it as shit, despite the fact that it's notionally 'quicker'.
Cooking on gas is just more visceral.
I remember looking a right tit in a hostel in Stockholm in 2008 or so, trying to cook dinner. Fancy looking hob, everything in Swedish. I turned it on, I thought, but no visual feedback. Tried wafting my hand over the hob I thought should be hot, but nothing. Very confused. Eventually another guest came over and explained what was going on.
Several of our pans don't work on our induction hob. At first we thought it was the hob, until we tried the right pan.
Yes, that's another downside of this frankly shit excuse for a proper gas hob – all the great pans you have collected over the years at great expense. Guess what? They not longer work.
Gas is where it's at.
I love my induction hob. Yes I had to replace the pans, but I took the chance to buy a really nice set and love using them.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes it's why every announcement of tech that can win the climate change war rather than ridiculous lifestyle changes are met with scepticism by the loony bin Greens. The turning point will be when commercially viable tech that removes CO2 from the air and makes a useful substance from it becomes available in the next 5 years. Once atmospheric CO2 begins to have real value the private sector will pile in to extract it and eventually it will become a fairly important industry. That's the tech revolution we, as a nation, need to be at the forefront of, not bowing down to Green mentalists who want everyone to live in caves.
One of my upper middle-class XR supporting Green friends posted a Facebook petition against CCS tech and asked me to sign it.
I politely declined and sent her a message outlining why I disagreed. It's exactly what we need.
Jeez I try to ignore you but only the most self regarding patronising twat could have written this *and* believe what he's written.
I have to say that you’re extremely shit at ignoring him. Perhaps get a room and have a Women In Love style wrassle off to settle things once and for all?
They can have a melon-off if another pb.com meetup ever happens.
Surely a game of chicken in Dacia Dusters as they are cool again.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I've seen the forcing people to "get their boilers changed when they work fine" thing a few times, but I've never seen any evidence that this is policy for any government/party anywhere. What's talked about is ending installation of new gas boilers from date X, but that's not the same thing at all. If that happens, then people will keep their existing boilers until they fail (as they do now) and when they fail the replacement will be (for most - as switching to heat pumps or solar thermal will be uneconomic for most retro-fits) a drop-in electric replacement.
Now, that can still be a bad thing from a consumer point of view, if TCO for the replacement is higher than TCO for an equivalent, no longer available, gas boiler. But it is very different to being forced to "get their boilers changed".
Edit to add: I know of a couple of self-builds/major renovations near us where the owner-occupiers have chosen electric boilers over oil/LPG as the all-round better option. We're on gas main with gas boiler, but at the edge of an area with mains gas connection. Interesting that electric boilers are starting to look attractive against oil/LPG, there's clearly the hassle aspect with a fuel that needs delivery and storage, but still something pretty much unheard of a few years back.
Did you see the microwave based boiler concept earlier this year? I think that's going to be the solution as its price competitive and slots into existing spaces. Over 10-15 years the existing stock of gas boilers will naturally get replaced so there's no need to get people to change early or pay extortionate prices for air or ground based heat pump systems.
The microwave boilers won't go anywhere fast - they are just on demand electrical heating by another name, and in the absence of storage require you to heat your property at peak electricity prices without the 3-4x cost reduction (through less electricity needed) you can get with a Heat Pump.
To keep the price of heating the same with on demand electrical heating the same as a gas boiler the amount used has to reduced by about 75%, or somebody else to pay 75% of the bill. That's just physics and economics.
In essence it is no different from the "Wall Mounted Electric Radiators" sold by spivs and con-artists as a 'replacement' for storage heaters.
Lol, Rhodes doesn't fall. Oriel College decline to do so because of expense and regulatory concerns, especially given that the culture secretary has an effective veto over its removal now.
Expect Twitter go go mental over it, I wonder whether Labour will fall into this trap as well or if they'll manage to sidestep it by not saying anything. We know the Tories will celebrate it especially given that Oriel have cited regulatory issues as the major reason to not do it.
What was the point of all the independent review...they should have just stood up from the start and said no.
Wait until next week when they find the money for a f***** rotunda, or something.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I've seen the forcing people to "get their boilers changed when they work fine" thing a few times, but I've never seen any evidence that this is policy for any government/party anywhere. What's talked about is ending installation of new gas boilers from date X, but that's not the same thing at all. If that happens, then people will keep their existing boilers until they fail (as they do now) and when they fail the replacement will be (for most - as switching to heat pumps or solar thermal will be uneconomic for most retro-fits) a drop-in electric replacement.
Now, that can still be a bad thing from a consumer point of view, if TCO for the replacement is higher than TCO for an equivalent, no longer available, gas boiler. But it is very different to being forced to "get their boilers changed".
Edit to add: I know of a couple of self-builds/major renovations near us where the owner-occupiers have chosen electric boilers over oil/LPG as the all-round better option. We're on gas main with gas boiler, but at the edge of an area with mains gas connection. Interesting that electric boilers are starting to look attractive against oil/LPG, there's clearly the hassle aspect with a fuel that needs delivery and storage, but still something pretty much unheard of a few years back.
Did you see the microwave based boiler concept earlier this year? I think that's going to be the solution as its price competitive and slots into existing spaces. Over 10-15 years the existing stock of gas boilers will naturally get replaced so there's no need to get people to change early or pay extortionate prices for air or ground based heat pump systems.
The microwave boilers won't go anywhere fast - they are just on demand electrical heating by another name, and in the absence of storage require you to heat your property at peak electricity prices without the 3-4x cost reduction (through less electricity needed) you can get with a Heat Pump.
To keep the price of heating the same with on demand electrical heating the same as a gas boiler the amount used has to reduced by about 75%, or somebody else to pay 75% of the bill. That's just physics and economics.
In essence it is no different from the "Wall Mounted Electric Radiators" sold by spivs and con-artists as a 'replacement' for storage heaters.
100% right, and in fact I believe I highlighted this when we first spoke about it.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
Because the housing market doesn't play to money currently?
Currently people can't afford to buy a home, with or without a view.
Liberalise the housing market and it will be easier to buy a home, but maybe harder to buy a view. So which is more important: being able to buy a house, or buy a view?
PS this already happens in many countries without a draconian planning regime. Communities can buy the fields near them then let them to farmers for peppercorn rents. That way they can only be developed if the community agrees to sell and if the community agrees to sell the community gets the income from selling.
I'm sure you have a point. Our planning laws could be improved. It's the badging you need to work on. Like "defund the police" your slogan is not a good choice.
Everyone "buying their own view" sounds appalling. Visions of wealthy people gazing forever upon rolling fields, softly tinkling fountains, swans gliding gracefully across tranquil waters, whilst the poor look out at somebody peeing against a brutalist, graffiti-covered wall.
That's how it is now. Our goal has to be to mitigate this, not reinforce it.
The point is my vision is that everyone ought to be able to buy their own home.
Views are secondary to that. If I have a pretty neighbour, I don't get to demand to view her, that's creepy. Keeping views of your neighbours land is up to them surely, its not yours? Most important is getting people able to get their own home - beyond that is bonus.
Everyone "buying their own home" then. I can get behind that. You'd need to do something on the finance side for those with little income or capital, but this shouldn't be beyond the wit of man. Sold.
Jeez I try to ignore you but only the most self regarding patronising twat could have written this *and* believe what he's written.
I have to say that you’re extremely shit at ignoring him. Perhaps get a room and have a Women In Love style wrassle off to settle things once and for all?
They can have a melon-off if another pb.com meetup ever happens.
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
Let's not call it anti car sentiment, let's call it what it is. Anti drivers sentiment.
And ~90% of commuting outside of the cities, and thus voters too, are drivers.
And people wonder why Labour is a cities only party.
A lot of people on the Left have a fundamental issue with private car ownership because it represents a freedom and independence they can't control.
"The left hates discipline." "The left hates cars."
It's a nonsense
Error who.insituted the London congestion charge.? Who is increasing the area.. Labour.. who has completely fucked up Brighton.. Labour and the Greens..... those are just a couple of major examples
Did Boris Johnson remove the London congestion charge when he was mayor for 2 terms like? No? Conservatives must hate cars then.
That's like the "Thatcher put taxes to 60%, so she must have been a socialist" line. It's the movement that matters (ie policy change), and it's always much harder to remove a law from the books - especially one that's generating revenue you'll have to replace - than to stop it from happening in the first place.
Anyway, we all know Johnson has an ungodly and distinctly un-Conservative attachment to bicycles. It's one of those things that reminds us periodically that he's very much on the left of the party.
Well yeah — but if you're extrapolating the congestion charge to "the left hate cars" then I'm within my rights to extrapolate the keeping of the congestion charge with "Conservatives hate cars". Of course they're both nonsense.
The left don't hate cars — not outside of London anyway. I love cars, for example. Trains, buses, and taxis are sh*t in comparison. It's just that London trains, buses, and taxis are less sh*t than everywhere else in the country.
The issue is you are atypical for much of the left.
I've said before I could well imagine you as a Tory in the future. I wouldn't say that about everyone.
The Tories have won all these seats and kept their traditional southern seats because they are the OR party. You can vote Tory - and be welcomed doing so - if you support this or this or this or that. Labour absolutely could copy this and reconnect with their former hinterlands but only if they drop the zealotry and absolutism.
Its impossible for millions of Labour voters to vote Labour - despite liking some of their policies - because they can't agree to this AND this AND this and in disagreeing with part of it they aren't a class traitor or sell out.
Is that really right?
I know it sounds as though I am making this up .... but one of my Cambridge friends, whose house was plastered with Corbyn posters in GE 2019, is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist whose 4 children went to Eton.
Treachery or not, he had no difficulty in reconciling his personal life choices with Corbynism++.
I mentioned this before but, in the 2019 GE in Highgate, the bigger the house, the more likelihood of a Corbyn poster.
As a general point, I think people like your friend will have their advisors who will ensure they never bear the brunt of Corbynite policies. As usual, it will be the less well-connected middle class who cannot deploy various schemes to mitigate their losses who would have been the most impacted.
Yet another outing for the old 'wealthy people can't be left wing unless they're hypocritical phonies' trope.
This is a twist on the politics of envy. What it's actually saying is the following -
"Look, you're rich, good for you, but don't go pretending you're morally superior as well. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Not both."
It's a close relation to something I came across in the City. People being pissed off that traders were allowed to wear casual clothes for work. Sentiment being, "If you're gonna get paid stupid sums for operating a glorified call centre, least you can do is have to struggle into a suit and tie every day. Tosspots."
Shame is often those rich, public schoolboys who vote Labour, James O’Brien springs to mind, point & guffaw at working class Leave/UKIP/Tories saying “They’re literally voting to make themselves poorer!!” whilst voting to make themselves poorer and thinking it a virtue
Cute point but flawed. Because rich people voting knowingly against their economic self-interest is a wholly different thing to poor people being conned into voting against theirs.
That's why your point doesn't quite work. Whether they were actually being conned is a separate argument. I think they were, as you know.
And I totally agree with you about 'guffawing'. It's in all circumstances a reprehensible thing. I never guffaw and I distance myself from those who do.
Jeez I try to ignore you but only the most self regarding patronising twat could have written this *and* believe what he's written.
Well why don't you "lead the team" through some "good debating" on electric toothbrushes then?
On topic, an interesting article. It raises the question of whether there are any Midlands-specific policies that Labour can adopt. Backing, or at least accepting, Brexit is one. The Midlands is car-dependent, so maybe building more roads? House prices aren't as high as in the south, so housebuilding probably wouldn't work. Embracing the flag has been insincere and embarassing. And regional aid would probably not work either as it's not as deprived as the north (and I imagine the parts that are, vote Labour anyway).
So I don't think there's a magic bullet for Labour here, certainly not under Starmer.
Cars are probably a big one.
For years now all Labour wants to talk about are the railways. In one way the Tories sorting out the railways may be self-harming politically, since the more Labour talks about railways, the more Labour is just talking to them in cities.
If you drive around, but one party only wants to talk about public transport and acts like the very notion of driving is evil, then what does that say about what that party thinks about you?
I can say with experience that anti-car sentiment is very strong at the top of the public sector and within transportation.
Part of that is self-interest, of course. The latest is to major on the fact that electric cars will still be very bad for pollution due to the Oslo Effect of tyre and brake friction particulates and road dust emissions; tail pipe gas being only about 50-60% of it.
I get the impression that ditching the unrealistic green targets would be very popular outside London. Or at least implementing them by forcing people to stop driving and get their boilers changed when they work fine will be extremely unpopular. I just wonder which country will be the first to break the collective hysteria.
I think I've said on here before that the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing if they think cold homes, no more foreign holidays and bland diets are a vote winner.
We only go green with lots of innovative new technology that enhances choice and makes people's lives better.
Yes, and they also need to make the case for positive innovative greenery, as opposed to the greenery proposed by those on the left that is mostly negative and destroying of economic activity.
As we move to zero-emission cars, having suburban people move about via cars in tree-lined streets is going to be very environmentally friendly.
Indeed if we're using net zero fuel then I wonder whether clean cars moving about in spacious tree-lined streets will be cleaner than trams in concrete jungles.
Unlikely. Electric cars solve the problem of NO2 emissions and reduce carbon emissions (though carbon is remarkably complex!). OTOH, they increase the emissions of some particulates, and there are also issues around, especially, lithium extraction for batteries. Basically, however you're doing it, you are, per passenger, moving a lot more weight and having to work a lot harder against friction if you're moving people by cars than if you're moving people by mass transit. You're also occupying far more road space. I'm not denying that electric cars are a big step forward, but they are not a panacea to all our urban transport travails. The point about spacious tree-lined streets is key - we can only really get these streets if we reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets. For which we need improvements in the provision of non-car modes (including walking - see 'spacious tree-lined streets'. This can be done without taking a heavy handed, hardline anti-car approach.
One big thing electric cars do give us when we are trying to make streets a nicer place to be is a massive reduction in noise. It's much more pleasant to be in a street with electric cars humming silently past you than being shouted at by an internal combustion engine. It does present issues crossing the road though - it's amazing how much we use sound as an indication that nothing is coming when we cross. We will get used to it soon enough though.
We don't need to reduce the volume of traffic on our urban streets, we can build more and bigger streets.
Have more undeveloped fields developed and built on. You can have buildings for housing, trees for the environment, roads for moving, buildings for businesses etc - rather than fields for animals to wander on that our economically irrelevant and could be imported from New Zealand instead.
More streets means more space dedicated to cars instead of the things people actually want - shops, restaurants, libraries, housing & all that stuff. The problem with allocating all that space is that you turn walkable places where you could live & get access to all the amenities you need on foot or by bicycle into car-dependent suburbs. In a car-dependent ’urb it’s impossible to live without a car, because so much space has been given over to cars that you can’t get anywhere without using one, whether you like it or not. Even travelling short distances that many people would be happy to walk becomes impossible once enough space has been given over to cars, because the roads become so wide that crossing them becomes an exercise in taking your life in your hands.
This is not a model of development that actually leads to a great deal of happiness - individually we all like the idea of the large garden /and/ the wide streets on which we can drive where-ever we want, but the net effect when everyone does that is to destroy the very places we inhabit.
The country is not short of space.
70% of UK land is used for agriculture. Agriculture is 0.61% of UK GDP.
Personally I find dedicating 70% of land to 0.61% of GDP to be rather inefficient - what about you?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. We don't allocate land dependent on GDP, otherwise the country would be covered in office blocks. We keep country agricultural because we value green space.
We shouldn't.
I sometimes think you’d be happier moving to Coruscant. No green space, big buildings everywhere, the best political intrigue in the galaxy...
That's what those advocating piling people high in cities, while we keep the countryside (or "their view") unspoilt want. That's the opposite of what I am proposing.
I am saying there should be more green space, more trees, more gardens, more parks where people LIVE, not just in fields that nobody ever goes to, are totally uneconomic, and are only ever seen from the sky.
Besides I've said all along if you want an unspoilt view then buy your view. Not one person has come up with an objection to that.
I agree that we have too much ordinary under-utilised scrub or pasture land that could be much better used, rather than being mechanically mowed. Far too great a distance between hedgerows and those that are there, cut far too frequently and aggressively.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean concreting over with roads, houses with patios. We have a shortage of housing in some parts of the country. But just about everywhere we have a shortage of quality hedgerow, woodland, wetland and wildflower meadow, all of which are important from a biodiversity and carbon perspective.
Your complete disinterest in this with a sole focus on building building building is completely at odds with the direction of both politicians and the public mood.
If building is so at odds why is there so much demand for housing? Why are prices so high? Why do new houses get bought from the plots before they're even built and have people moving in the day they're ready?
It's at odds with the selfish shits who want unspoilt views but don't want to pay to buy those views. Again, if you buy your own view then that's it, discussion over, if you don't then jog on.
Everyone "buying their own view" doesn't sound a great way to go to me. Money already brings great advantage and it always will. We should be looking for ways to reduce this not add to it.
Because the housing market doesn't play to money currently?
Currently people can't afford to buy a home, with or without a view.
Liberalise the housing market and it will be easier to buy a home, but maybe harder to buy a view. So which is more important: being able to buy a house, or buy a view?
PS this already happens in many countries without a draconian planning regime. Communities can buy the fields near them then let them to farmers for peppercorn rents. That way they can only be developed if the community agrees to sell and if the community agrees to sell the community gets the income from selling.
I'm sure you have a point. Our planning laws could be improved. It's the badging you need to work on. Like "defund the police" your slogan is not a good choice.
Everyone "buying their own view" sounds appalling. Visions of wealthy people gazing forever upon rolling fields, softly tinkling fountains, swans gliding gracefully across tranquil waters, whilst the poor look out at somebody peeing against a brutalist, graffiti-covered wall.
That's how it is now. Our goal has to be to mitigate this, not reinforce it.
The point is my vision is that everyone ought to be able to buy their own home.
Views are secondary to that. If I have a pretty neighbour, I don't get to demand to view her, that's creepy. Keeping views of your neighbours land is up to them surely, its not yours? Most important is getting people able to get their own home - beyond that is bonus.
Everyone "buying their own home" then. I can get behind that. You'd need to do something on the finance side for those with little income or capital, but this shouldn't be beyond the wit of man. Sold.
Please not more govt subsidised finance, that is the prop that is making housing expensive as it makes a majority of the country believe the govt will just increase that subsidy if prices ever look like falling. In the very long run they are wrong, but the very long run is way too long for most people's lives.
That makes me uneasy. None of the explanations that spring to mind are innocent.
Why? Home Secretary observing implementation of Home Office policy?
It has the air of mob boss wishing to witness at close quarters the 'debriefing' of the 'rat'.
The 'rat' is an alleged criminal gangster making money on others misery.
Where do your sympathies lie?
I love all the screeching about how dare the authorities remove the two Indians illegal immigrants on an Islamic holy day.....and they turn out to two Sikhs. So essentially people are arguing you can't deport an individual from a nominally Christian country on the holy day of a different religion that has nothing to do with those being deported. Interesting logic.
In essence it is no different from the "Wall Mounted Electric Radiators" sold by spivs and con-artists as a 'replacement' for storage heaters.
I saw an advert once for an electric radiator that was basically a crypto-currency miner
When I was doing GPU computing, at one point I had my machine from work at home. It was driving 4 big cards and a CPU. The power supply was interesting. The noise was quite something. The space heating effect was quite pronounced when I was optimising a portfolio.....
Comments
Engines are three per season, gearboxes are six concecutive events unless you retire. Although actually, now I think about it, it may be a ‘Friday gearbox’ which doesn’t count.
What's good for the Conservatives is good for Britain because Labour are bad for Britain, so the Conservatives sacred duty is to win elections and keep out Labour who are very bad for Britain. Therefore whatever the Conservatives do to win elections and stay in power is not only good for them, it is by definition extremely good for Britain.
This is the logic of the ultra partisan. And it's impeccable on its own terms.
That requires a very frequent bus service with limited wait periods...
Edit: BF now 2.58.
Netflix is following Ferrari this weekend. As if Charles‘s home race curse wasn‘t enough. We need a bigger prayer circle this weekend
Tells me that this is only the beginning of Ferrari's problems this weekend.
And it's nice to know netflix will have another series next year - I rather enjoyed it.
https://twitter.com/barbarasutton15/status/1395304002334699521?s=21
* Carefully selected phrase for my correspondent.
When I lived in Wiltshire, an enterprising chap proposed that, since the ridership on the buses was very low, he could offer a better service (more frequent) with Priuses and less CO2 emissions.
He proposal was rejected "because buses".
I reckon we're about 18 months away from Oliver Durden wearing a Lt Gen's sabre, baton and crown epaulettes.
Everyone knows that Yes, Minister tells you everything you need to know about British government. But there's a subtle difference between the book and the TV series.
The final TV episode was The Tangled Web, where Hacker gets one over on Sir Humphrey. But in the novelisation, the final episode is The National Education service. The end (narrated as Hacker's diaries) is quite poignant;
I took a deep breath. "Yes," I said quietly. My plans were turning to dust. Like all my plans. Suddenly I saw, with a real clarity that I'd never enjoyed before, that although I might win the occasional policy victory, or be indulged with a few scraps from the table, noting fundamental was ever ever going to change.
Humphrey was now in the best of humour. I heard his voice, as if in the distance. "Prime Minister? Prime Minister? Are you all right?"
I focused on him. "Yes".
"Excellent. Then shall we continue with the agendum?"
"Agendum?" I smiled. All the fight had gone out of me. "No, Humphrey, we have no agendum any more. Meeting declared closed. All right?"
"Yes Prime Minister." He smiled at me with sympathy. He could see that at last I understood.
Which, of course, is exactly what F1 wanted from the programme, new fans. Mostly women and Americans.
so let’s recap
-mclaren has a celebratory livery
-williams is celebrating 750 races
-ferrari is being followed by netflix
I anticipate chaos
https://twitter.com/Chaaarlee1/status/1395259823973969920
What gets me the most is the zealots who eg suggest over £100bn on HS2 is good to level up the north. When the overwhelming majority of us drive.
If we can spend £100bn on new rail links, let alone whatever crossrail etc cost then I can only wonder what £100bn spent building new motorways could have done for transportation in this country?
But those setting the agenda like to pretend we are all just waiting for trains.
Would you prefer she sat in her ivory tower and had no idea what deportations look like in practice, and the implications on the lives of the people targeted?
Uber's entire aim was to be in prime position as the switch from humans driving to automated driving occurred.
Then everyone discovered it not a 90%/10% problem but a 99.99%/0.01% problem and automation is nowhere near where everyone hoped it would be.
I rather suspect that it was down to ensuring that the right people got the contract.
Here's the Labour version:
What's good for Labour is good for Britain because the Tories are bad for Britain, so Labour's sacred duty is to win elections and keep out the Tories who are very bad for Britain. Unless that means compromising one micron with Blairites/Brownites/Soft Left/Blue Labour/Corbynites/Starmerites/reality, in which case our faction must maintain absolute ideological purity and if the Tories get in again then who cares anyway at least they'll keep our taxes down...
It was an NCA raid arresting suspected people smuggling gangsters.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/priti-patel-joins-raids-as-police-arrest-people-smuggling-suspects/ar-BB1gUvZt
If the Ferrari speed is real, then half that would be decent odds.
Picking Leadbetter would hardly be an example of dynastic inherited privilege! Nor of sentimentality for that matter. It would be based on hard-headed calculation of electoral appeal. The right candidate for Time & Place. The person with the best chance of winning. And, as it happens, with a good CV.
But let's see if they do pick her. Maybe they won't. Seems a no-brainer to me but perhaps I'm missing something.
I've opposed Yang from the start, so how have been quite offside as he went very short (as low as 1.21 at one point) and see he is now back to 2.2, which puts me about flat. It seems to be Yang head to head vs Adams. Adams is the candidate with better local ties, small lead in polls and with upwards momentum so any reason why he is not odds on?
He's the sort of luvvie I'd imagine has been caught up with the the Tories clamping down on tax evasion IR35 etc.
And his tax affairs had better be whiter than white so no I don't think he would have been caught up but you never know.
But at those odds, Ferrari just has to have some sort of a chance, not be the quickest. And Monaco gives them that.
25 or 30/1 might be fair value ?
Everyone "buying their own view" sounds appalling. Visions of wealthy people gazing forever upon rolling fields, softly tinkling fountains, swans gliding gracefully across tranquil waters, whilst the poor look out at somebody peeing against a brutalist, graffiti-covered wall.
That's how it is now. Our goal has to be to mitigate this, not reinforce it.
Gas is where it's at.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/nyregion/nyc-mayor-debate-takeaways.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_York_City_mayoral_election
I watched the GOP’s Arizona election audit. It was worse than you think.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/05/19/gop-arizona-election-audit/
Though 'Cyber Ninjas' makes an interesting change from PwC or KPMG...
...The volunteers only recounted if their tally sheets had three or more errors — a threshold they stuck to, no matter how many ballots a stack contained, whether it was 50 or 100. This allowed for a shocking amount of error. Some table managers told the counters to go back and recount when there were too many errors; other table managers just instructed the counters to fix their “math mistakes.” At no point did anyone track how many ballots they were processing at their station, to ensure that none got added or lost during handling....
The determination that a folded ballot paper is 'suspicious' is just bizarre.
Most voters will have no idea who she is.
IMO that's a mistake, we benefit a lot from having a neutral civil service that serves successive govts and gives them impartial advice.... rather than say the US system where everyone senior changes jobs with a new administration and a bunch of the people are offered jobs because they are big donors/influential in the party.
Views are secondary to that. If I have a pretty neighbour, I don't get to demand to view her, that's creepy. Keeping views of your neighbours land is up to them surely, its not yours? Most important is getting people able to get their own home - beyond that is bonus.
Slow corners suit their car.
Expect Twitter go go mental over it, I wonder whether Labour will fall into this trap as well or if they'll manage to sidestep it by not saying anything. We know the Tories will celebrate it especially given that Oriel have cited regulatory issues as the major reason to not do it.
I politely declined and sent her a message outlining why I disagreed. It's exactly what we need.
She didn't respond.
To keep the price of heating the same with on demand electrical heating the same as a gas boiler the amount used has to reduced by about 75%, or somebody else to pay 75% of the bill. That's just physics and economics.
In essence it is no different from the "Wall Mounted Electric Radiators" sold by spivs and con-artists as a 'replacement' for storage heaters.
Could they not have a whip around?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/may/20/a-united-nations-of-how-marbella-became-a-magnet-for-gangsters
Lol.
Where do your sympathies lie?
Forgive my ignorance, but are such "debriefings" usually accompanied by TV cameras?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57185806
Do billionaires not have to quarantine?
As @HYUFD often affirms, @Philip_Thompson is not a Conservative anyway!
There's room for all on here. PB = Diversity.
Red carpet.