Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The betting on next PM since BoJo bowed out – politicalbetting.com

13468911

Comments

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083
    eek said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    mwadams said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. Punter, there is no subsidy.

    Parents who sent children to private schools providing funding via taxation for state schools they do not even use while also funding their own children's education directly.

    If there's a subsidy, it's from private school parents to state school children.

    Not paying tax is not the same thing as receiving a subsidy.

    If tax breaks can exist for religion they can certainly exist for education.

    It is one thing to ask people to pay taxes so that other people's children can get the same education that their kids are getting. It is quite another to ask them to pay taxes to subsidise other people's children to get a better education than their children are getting. Why should I be subsidising other people's kids to push in front of my kids in the queue for university places or jobs? Forget it.
    Usual Labour class envy mentality, even Blair's government abolished the assisted places scheme of course.

    The not rich but bright child must not be allowed the best chance to get on and become a higher earning Tory voter
    The not rich but bright child is precisely the one who is hurt most by the existence of private schools. Private education exists primarily to help the less bright but rich to jump the queue. It is the absolute antithesis of aspiration and meritocracy.
    Utter rubbish, it was Wilson's Labour government which started the process of abolishing the state grammar schools which offered results at least as good as private schools. It was the Blair government which abolished assisted places which offered places to the bright but less well off in private schools and Starmer's policy on charitable status will have the same effect.

    As so often with Labour class war, restricting choice and dumbing down to the lowest common denominator remains at its heart
    Laughable. Would love you to tell Tory voters in areas that don't have grammar schools that their kids are "lowest common denominator"
    Given most Tory voters want more grammar schools they would have no problem with more choice you leftwingers as usual wish to deny.

    It is not the kids that are lowest common denominator but many of the state schools, especially in poorer areas
    Surely 'most Tory voter's are not parents of school-age children; they might be grandparents of them but parenting days have passed!
    The age more voted Tory than Labour in 2019 was 39 not 69
    Really? What about this?

    image
    That clearly shows 40+ backing Tories, and matches HYUFD's claim that the crossover age was 39.
    In the best tradition of PB pedantry, it actually suggests the crossover is somewher in 40-49, probably towards the lower end if it's a fairly smooth curve.

    Edit: but impossible to be sure from that chart. I'm pretty sure there are single year charts from pollsters (or exit poll projections?) that give a more precise point, although you may fall into sample size problems at single year of age

    Edit 2: And now mwadams has posted such a graph, so ignore the above :smile:
    And, too late with edit 3:
    Struggling to reconcile those two graphs, the distibutions in the top don't match the lines in the bottom - bottom graph is very smooth so looks like a simple regression fit rather than the actual data. I'd not expect straight lines really. Crossover is 39 on what looks to be a bit of an oversimplistic model. Likely a bit higher in reality.
    Also it's possible that the cross over point is getting higher as the population ages. If it was 42 (say) in 2019 it's very likely to be 43/44 now....
    Indeed. And moves with relative fortunes of the parties. If Lab adds 10pp on VI compared to Con then the Lab line moves up and crossover moves older (all assuming linear response across ages and the straight lines illustrated, neither of which are particularly likely, of course).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    Scott_xP said:

    Labour say Tory candidates have already made £330 billion in uncosted spending commitments

    And have even come up with a funky new logo: https://twitter.com/thejonnyreilly/status/1546438213371305985/photo/1


    Long term, is it wise for Labour to concede the idea that the Tories want to outspend them, especially if a lot of the focus is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be in the “Red Wall”?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour say Tory candidates have already made £330 billion in uncosted spending commitments

    And have even come up with a funky new logo: https://twitter.com/thejonnyreilly/status/1546438213371305985/photo/1


    They do realise only 1 candidate is going to win?
    On the scale of Dreadfully Unscrupulous Things That Parties do, I don't think that even competes with the Tory culture wars and LibDem barcharts. A little bit of bite is not unwelcome.
    Certainly doesn't compete with the left starting a culture war and then moaning about "Tory culture wars" when the right dares to react.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157
    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    Because they want to pay for their kids to have an advantage in life?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.

    As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years.
    If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them.
    There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.

    What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.

    There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.


    Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
    Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.

    "Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
    The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.

    But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍

    We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
    Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.

    The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.

    In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
    Oh boo frigging hoo.

    Make the town centre more appealling then.

    What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?

    For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
    One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
    In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi

    It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain

    It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols

    Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk

    There's no reason that can't be done in this country.

    Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.

    I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.

    If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
    No. Get rid of cars. Just make the fat fucks walk
    A message to all Paraplegics from Sean
    That is my message, but I am not Sean

    He's nicer than me
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    edited July 11
    dixiedean said:

    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    Who's unhappy with streaming? I struggle to think of a secondary school which doesn't.
    There may be one.
    The concept is good, and in the main followed mostly by most comps. It does make timetabling a little difficult though. You can only set in the core subjects (EngMathSci) separately. After that you have to band them, ie in humanities, creatives etc. In GCSE the non-core subjects are always mixed ability. (I was a timetabler for 10 years as well as a physics/maths teacher).
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.

    As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years.
    If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them.
    There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.

    What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.

    There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.


    Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
    Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.

    "Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
    The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.

    But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍

    We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
    Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.

    The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.

    In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
    Oh boo frigging hoo.

    Make the town centre more appealling then.

    What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?

    For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
    One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
    In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi

    It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain

    It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols

    Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk

    There's no reason that can't be done in this country.

    Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.

    I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.

    If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
    No. Get rid of cars. Just make the fat fucks walk
    It's not the walking to the shops, it's the carrying back what you've bought.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,053
    edited July 11
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.

    As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years.
    If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them.
    There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.

    What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.

    There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.


    Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
    Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.

    "Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
    The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.

    But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍

    We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
    Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.

    The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.

    In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
    Oh boo frigging hoo.

    Make the town centre more appealling then.

    What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?

    For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
    One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
    In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi

    It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain

    It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols

    Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk

    There's no reason that can't be done in this country.

    Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.

    I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.

    If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
    Liverpool One is great not least because Everton opened a club shop there called "Everton Two"...
    Genuine LOL :lol:

    Imagines reading that in James Alexander Gordon voice. Everton 2, Liverpool 1.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 53,997
    Just come in from town and Johnson being interviewed by Rigby on Sky was surreal

    Seems to be in denial

  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,512
    Pulpstar said:

    I had some cyclists annoy me for the first time in years whilst driving yesterday. Four of them with about 20 feet between each cyclist in their pace line. Now I don't expect Team Sky/Ineos discipline but it was the worst pace line I've come across yet. Made passing a bit of a nightmare.

    "Keep a gap of less than one cycle length in a pace line" for the Highway code.

    No excuse if it wasn't raining. For proper wheel-sucking, even one cycle length is not close enough.

    This is one of the reasons car drivers shouldn't complain about cyclists two abreast. It is a hell of a lot easier to overtake a compact bunch than a strung out line.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,077

    It comes as no surprise that the newly installed LTNs in East Oxford are being attacked and removed by frustrated residents. A more measured approach would have avoided the anger that has been created.

    Yes, I agree with that.

    A big bang like this isn't what the lobby groups were expecting and it's made the whole thing much more difficult. If they'd started with (say) Flo Park and Divinity Road, plus bus and cycle measures on the main roads, then there could have been a much more gradual roll-out without the current poisonous atmosphere.

    Anyway, this is probably all better suited to oxfordbetting than a national site ;)
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    eek said:

    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    That's simple - because of the structural "flaws" within the 11 plus exam, very few working class children end up in Grammar schools so those in favour of them don't have to mix with the working classes...
    Also Grammar schools are ring fenced a little from everyday students with behavioural and learning difficulties, that impinge (allegedly) on the education of the "good" students.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083
    dixiedean said:

    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    Who's unhappy with streaming? I struggle to think of a secondary school which doesn't.
    There may be one.
    One near us did not up until around ten years ago (my FiL was head at a local primary and liaison with the secondary in question as well as another local secondary so was aware of this - my wife also went there). Was talking about it the other day, coincidentally.

    Mind you, that school ended up in special measures*, got Akademi-ised and changed practices. Streams now.

    *it wasn't particularly bad when my wife went there, but she still remembers the lack of streaming in e.g. maths being really weird. Part of the class doing differentiation and integration while another part was trying to master fractions.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,810
    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,641

    One thing about Kemi Badenoch is that she is a very nice and kind person. Which is certainly not true of some of the other more right orientated candidates. I am surprised that her odds are so short given her lack of experience but I suspect after so much nastiness some people want someone nicer.

    Kemi's odds are not "so short" and are drifting back out after the Gove boost. According to the betting it is a three horse race, although political betting markets are often wrong. Here are Betfair's prices for next PM right now (again note that next PM and next party leader prices might be slightly different).

    2.78 Rishi Sunak
    4.8 Penny Mordaunt
    6 Liz Truss
    13.5 Tom Tugendhat
    19.5 Jeremy Hunt
    20 Kemi Badenoch
    32 Sajid Javid
    46 Nadhim Zahawi
    50 Priti Patel
    60 Dominic Raab
    60 Suella Braverman
    It seems to me that there are two types of Tories - Happy Tories and Angry Tories. The party used to be a predominantly Happy party. Thatcher was unusually good at appealing to both groups. Major and Cameron were better at attracting the Happy Group. Johnson won in London on a Happy Ticket. Brexit was the Happy vs Angry issue par excellence, and has put the Tories more squarely in the Angry camp. Johnson's core supporters are Angry. This is where the votes will be mostly among the membership.
    Sunak, Shapps, Zahawi, Hunt and Tugendhat are representatives of the Happy wing, while Truss and the various right wing candidates seem more likely to attract the Angry side. Mordaunt I guess is more Happy than Angry but may have crossover appeal. So Sunak probably loses. And Truss looks more likely to be where the Angry vote coalesces to stop him.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Leon, on the plus side, my misanthropic introversion turns out to be a survival trait.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,166

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    £250k deposit to get past the first round, forfeit on failing to contest the final one.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,095

    Just come in from town and Johnson being interviewed by Rigby on Sky was surreal

    Seems to be in denial

    Is he in denial, or are the rest of us in denial?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    This has lost all meaning...

    I can lead, deliver and make the tough decisions.

    I have a clear vision of where we need to be, and the experience and resolve to get us there.

    And I will govern as a Conservative.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/10/liz-truss-would-cut-taxes-day-one-prime-minister
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    Applicant said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour say Tory candidates have already made £330 billion in uncosted spending commitments

    And have even come up with a funky new logo: https://twitter.com/thejonnyreilly/status/1546438213371305985/photo/1


    They do realise only 1 candidate is going to win?
    On the scale of Dreadfully Unscrupulous Things That Parties do, I don't think that even competes with the Tory culture wars and LibDem barcharts. A little bit of bite is not unwelcome.
    Certainly doesn't compete with the left starting a culture war and then moaning about "Tory culture wars" when the right dares to react.
    That sounds like the pot calling the kettle blackarse....
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,659

    Just come in from town and Johnson being interviewed by Rigby on Sky was surreal

    Seems to be in denial

    Is he in denial, or are the rest of us in denial?
    The rest of us have been taken for a ride. He's fine, and chuckling to himself no doubt.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.

    As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years.
    If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them.
    There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.

    What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.

    There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.


    Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
    Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.

    "Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
    The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.

    But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍

    We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
    Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.

    The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.

    In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
    Oh boo frigging hoo.

    Make the town centre more appealling then.

    What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?

    For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
    One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
    In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi

    It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain

    It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols

    Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk

    There's no reason that can't be done in this country.

    Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.

    I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.

    If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
    Liverpool 1 was possible because it was land available within the city that could be cheaply bought and renovated (equally moving the town centre say 200metres in a different direction). Leeds and Manchester was the same, cheap and available land allowed retail to be built within the confines of the town centre with the consequence of the town centre moving x00 yards in a different direction.

    That simply isn't possible in other places which is why Sheffield ended up with Meadowhall (out of town) rather than Sheffield One (within the City).
    It doesn't take that much land to build a multistory car park. Too many Councils are trying to eliminate parking and make it harder to drive into, rather than make it easier. Then they act horrified that the High Street is dead.

    I repeat again, for the umpteenth time, you complain that Bishop Auckland's High Street is dead but what has the Council done to make it easier to drive to and park at? Not vaguely more attractive, but specifically more attractive for cars?

    It doesn't matter how "attractive" something is, if you can't drive there, many people won't want to go there. If you spend a fortune on an anticar vendetta then don't whinge afterwards that people are driving somewhere else instead. Maybe Meadowhall has done more to make itself attractive for cars than Sheffield has?
    In 2010 there was enough parking in Bishop Auckland - now there is even more because fewer people visit.

    The reality is that unless you have major wastelands within a town centre you just don't have the ability to improve access as you can't afford to buy the land needed to build the road.
    I find that really hard to believe, most towns have a bit of countryside or similar around them they can expand into if needed.

    Looking at the webpage you linked to, it doesn't even mention parking or access as something being marked for improvement. Instead it specifically mentions "walking and cycling". I don't know about Bishop Auckland specifically, but typically "cycling routes" make it harder, not easier, to drive so looks like they're doubling down on the pedestrianisation efforts that are hollowing out and killing town centres in much of the country.

    Has Bishop Auckland done anything pro-car to make driving and parking easier, rather than harder? Or has it done the opposite?

    If its done the opposite, then don't be shocked that cars aren't going there and are going where they're welcome instead.
    Liverpool one is how many miles from open countryside? - it's slap bang in the centre of Liverpool albeit on land that wasn't used for a long time....

    But I note you shifted to cars and ignored the fact that you can't split £100 in spending in 2 and expect both places to survive on £50 each.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    Scott_xP said:

    This has lost all meaning...

    I can lead, deliver and make the tough decisions.

    I have a clear vision of where we need to be, and the experience and resolve to get us there.

    And I will govern as a Conservative.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/10/liz-truss-would-cut-taxes-day-one-prime-minister

    She's a Stepford Wife with the humanity wrung out of her.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,745
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.

    As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years.
    If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them.
    There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.

    What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.

    There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.


    Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
    Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.

    "Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
    The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.

    But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍

    We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
    Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.

    The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.

    In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
    Oh boo frigging hoo.

    Make the town centre more appealling then.

    What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?

    For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
    One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
    In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi

    It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain

    It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols

    Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk

    There's no reason that can't be done in this country.

    Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.

    I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.

    If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
    No. Get rid of cars. Just make the fat fucks walk
    A message to all Paraplegics from Sean
    That is my message, but I am not Sean

    He's nicer than me
    A bar so low as to give limbo dancers problems.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,053

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    That's simple - because of the structural "flaws" within the 11 plus exam, very few working class children end up in Grammar schools so those in favour of them don't have to mix with the working classes...
    Also Grammar schools are ring fenced a little from everyday students with behavioural and learning difficulties, that impinge (allegedly) on the education of the "good" students.
    I’d do Grammar schools the other way around - take the bottom 15% out, and teach them separately, with the resources to teach both academic and practical subjects.

    Put Katharine Birbalsingh in charge of the project, and call it Levelling Up Education.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    Sunak's seen the bill.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    glw said:

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    I don't have a vote but if I did I'd go for whoever is the most hawkish on Russia. Any Quislings can get stuffed.
    Tugendhat and Truss I think.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,166
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    work shy leadswingers, nae doot.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,800
    Pulpstar said:

    I had some cyclists annoy me for the first time in years whilst driving yesterday. Four of them with about 20 feet between each cyclist in their pace line. Now I don't expect Team Sky/Ineos discipline but it was the worst pace line I've come across yet. Made passing a bit of a nightmare.

    "Keep a gap of less than one cycle length in a pace line" for the Highway code.

    There has been a lot of discussion about this sort of sports cycling locally.

    As far as I have been able to work out, this is the only organised sporting activity that uses the public highway/realm in this way. All other team activity takes place in dedicated areas like pools, parks or pitches.

    I guess there may be road running groups but never seen those in operation on the roads. Pavements yes, roads no.

    I appreciate that cycling clubs aren't going to be able to use dedicated roadways. But there has to be an acknowledgement that what they are doing is a privilege more that an absolute right.

    We wouldn't expect road users to accommodate a group of kids playing football on the street. So why should a group of cyclists engaged in their sport be afforded any special consideration if they choose to cycle as an organised group activity using the public highway?

    An awareness that this sort of cycling does have the potential to cause delay to other road users and a willingness to break formation if a significant number of other road users are being held up would not be too much to ask. It is about being considerate.

    And that consideration should apply to all road users whether they are using 2 wheels or 4.

    And yes, I know that cyclists are more vulnerable. But in a shared public space, consideration and respect is vital from all users not just the powered ones.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.

    As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years.
    If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them.
    There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.

    What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.

    There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.


    Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
    Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.

    "Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
    The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.

    But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍

    We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
    Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.

    The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.

    In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
    Oh boo frigging hoo.

    Make the town centre more appealling then.

    What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?

    For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
    One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
    In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi

    It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain

    It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols

    Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk

    There's no reason that can't be done in this country.

    Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.

    I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.

    If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
    Liverpool 1 was possible because it was land available within the city that could be cheaply bought and renovated (equally moving the town centre say 200metres in a different direction). Leeds and Manchester was the same, cheap and available land allowed retail to be built within the confines of the town centre with the consequence of the town centre moving x00 yards in a different direction.

    That simply isn't possible in other places which is why Sheffield ended up with Meadowhall (out of town) rather than Sheffield One (within the City).
    It doesn't take that much land to build a multistory car park. Too many Councils are trying to eliminate parking and make it harder to drive into, rather than make it easier. Then they act horrified that the High Street is dead.

    I repeat again, for the umpteenth time, you complain that Bishop Auckland's High Street is dead but what has the Council done to make it easier to drive to and park at? Not vaguely more attractive, but specifically more attractive for cars?

    It doesn't matter how "attractive" something is, if you can't drive there, many people won't want to go there. If you spend a fortune on an anticar vendetta then don't whinge afterwards that people are driving somewhere else instead. Maybe Meadowhall has done more to make itself attractive for cars than Sheffield has?
    In 2010 there was enough parking in Bishop Auckland - now there is even more because fewer people visit.

    The reality is that unless you have major wastelands within a town centre you just don't have the ability to improve access as you can't afford to buy the land needed to build the road.
    I find that really hard to believe, most towns have a bit of countryside or similar around them they can expand into if needed.

    Looking at the webpage you linked to, it doesn't even mention parking or access as something being marked for improvement. Instead it specifically mentions "walking and cycling". I don't know about Bishop Auckland specifically, but typically "cycling routes" make it harder, not easier, to drive so looks like they're doubling down on the pedestrianisation efforts that are hollowing out and killing town centres in much of the country.

    Has Bishop Auckland done anything pro-car to make driving and parking easier, rather than harder? Or has it done the opposite?

    If its done the opposite, then don't be shocked that cars aren't going there and are going where they're welcome instead.
    Liverpool one is how many miles from open countryside? - it's slap bang in the centre of Liverpool albeit on land that wasn't used for a long time....

    But I note you shifted to cars and ignored the fact that you can't split £100 in spending in 2 and expect both places to survive on £50 each.
    I didn't shift to cars, I said immediately at the start that anti-car zealots were the problem. I literally said that in my first response to you!

    I ignored the "fact" that you can't split money between multiple places and expect both to survive as that "fact" was unmitigated bullshit. If you want me to address it, absolutely you can have expenditure spent at multiple places, indeed its called competition and it is an extremely healthy and good thing. Trying to abolish competition is not a good thing, for the consumer or almost anyone else.

    If some places are failing to survive its because they're uncompetitive. High Streets in much of the country are uncompetitive, because their Councils have embraced anti-car zealotry which means that their competition which welcomes cars freely are much more competitive than they are.

    Blame the zealots hobbling High Streets, not the competitors.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,226
    glw said:

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    I don't have a vote but if I did I'd go for whoever is the most hawkish on Russia. Any Quislings can get stuffed.
    One of the pro-Russia people I follow on Twitter really seems to hate Truss.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Sandpit, I agree on the cost of Ukraine's support being worth it.

    But this annoys me, because Sunak's perhaps the only candidate wanting to get finances in order *and*, perhaps, the only one who might go soft on Ukraine.

    Luckily, I don't have a vote so I don't have to try and decide whom I ought to support.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,095

    One thing about Kemi Badenoch is that she is a very nice and kind person. Which is certainly not true of some of the other more right orientated candidates. I am surprised that her odds are so short given her lack of experience but I suspect after so much nastiness some people want someone nicer.

    Kemi's odds are not "so short" and are drifting back out after the Gove boost. According to the betting it is a three horse race, although political betting markets are often wrong. Here are Betfair's prices for next PM right now (again note that next PM and next party leader prices might be slightly different).

    2.78 Rishi Sunak
    4.8 Penny Mordaunt
    6 Liz Truss
    13.5 Tom Tugendhat
    19.5 Jeremy Hunt
    20 Kemi Badenoch
    32 Sajid Javid
    46 Nadhim Zahawi
    50 Priti Patel
    60 Dominic Raab
    60 Suella Braverman
    It seems to me that there are two types of Tories - Happy Tories and Angry Tories. The party used to be a predominantly Happy party. Thatcher was unusually good at appealing to both groups. Major and Cameron were better at attracting the Happy Group. Johnson won in London on a Happy Ticket. Brexit was the Happy vs Angry issue par excellence, and has put the Tories more squarely in the Angry camp. Johnson's core supporters are Angry. This is where the votes will be mostly among the membership.
    Sunak, Shapps, Zahawi, Hunt and Tugendhat are representatives of the Happy wing, while Truss and the various right wing candidates seem more likely to attract the Angry side. Mordaunt I guess is more Happy than Angry but may have crossover appeal. So Sunak probably loses. And Truss looks more likely to be where the Angry vote coalesces to stop him.
    The Tories are only happy these days when they're putting Britain at war with the EU. Truss has the best credentials for continuing all that, so her chances of winning the leadership should be assessed accordingly.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I'm very much hoping that Kemi Badenoch can overtake one or both of those in order to go the membership.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited July 11
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    may have new or recurring symptoms at a later time

    Yeah, it's a respiratory virus. I had a cold earlier in the year. If I get another one, I'll have new or recurring symptoms, but it's not a "long cold".
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,667

    glw said:

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    I don't have a vote but if I did I'd go for whoever is the most hawkish on Russia. Any Quislings can get stuffed.
    One of the pro-Russia people I follow on Twitter really seems to hate Truss.
    Lavrov has an unhealthy obsession with her.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,800

    It comes as no surprise that the newly installed LTNs in East Oxford are being attacked and removed by frustrated residents. A more measured approach would have avoided the anger that has been created.

    Yes, I agree with that.

    A big bang like this isn't what the lobby groups were expecting and it's made the whole thing much more difficult. If they'd started with (say) Flo Park and Divinity Road, plus bus and cycle measures on the main roads, then there could have been a much more gradual roll-out without the current poisonous atmosphere.

    Anyway, this is probably all better suited to oxfordbetting than a national site ;)
    It is the reason why I want Shapps out of office as soon as possible!
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,659

    It comes as no surprise that the newly installed LTNs in East Oxford are being attacked and removed by frustrated residents. A more measured approach would have avoided the anger that has been created.

    Yes, I agree with that.

    A big bang like this isn't what the lobby groups were expecting and it's made the whole thing much more difficult. If they'd started with (say) Flo Park and Divinity Road, plus bus and cycle measures on the main roads, then there could have been a much more gradual roll-out without the current poisonous atmosphere.

    Anyway, this is probably all better suited to oxfordbetting than a national site ;)
    It is the reason why I want Shapps out of office as soon as possible!
    Surely they're not going for Shapps? He's scarcely more credible than the current clown.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    edited July 11
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout.
    Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,095

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    Not sure I follow. The article linked to is all about Rishi being Dom's puppet. Fair enough, but where does Ukraine fit in?
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,667

    Pulpstar said:

    I had some cyclists annoy me for the first time in years whilst driving yesterday. Four of them with about 20 feet between each cyclist in their pace line. Now I don't expect Team Sky/Ineos discipline but it was the worst pace line I've come across yet. Made passing a bit of a nightmare.

    "Keep a gap of less than one cycle length in a pace line" for the Highway code.

    There has been a lot of discussion about this sort of sports cycling locally.

    As far as I have been able to work out, this is the only organised sporting activity that uses the public highway/realm in this way. All other team activity takes place in dedicated areas like pools, parks or pitches.

    I guess there may be road running groups but never seen those in operation on the roads. Pavements yes, roads no.

    I appreciate that cycling clubs aren't going to be able to use dedicated roadways. But there has to be an acknowledgement that what they are doing is a privilege more that an absolute right.

    We wouldn't expect road users to accommodate a group of kids playing football on the street. So why should a group of cyclists engaged in their sport be afforded any special consideration if they choose to cycle as an organised group activity using the public highway?

    An awareness that this sort of cycling does have the potential to cause delay to other road users and a willingness to break formation if a significant number of other road users are being held up would not be too much to ask. It is about being considerate.

    And that consideration should apply to all road users whether they are using 2 wheels or 4.

    And yes, I know that cyclists are more vulnerable. But in a shared public space, consideration and respect is vital from all users not just the powered ones.
    A particular cause of annoyance is cyclists who ride on the road when there's an adjacent cycle path. Usually because it's on the opposite side and they can't be bothered to cross over.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,730

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,512
    Back on the weather front, GFS 06Z run has 41C again...

    It probably won't happen, but it remains a possibility. Really hope it doesn't.


    The reason these things doesn't normally occur despite being modelled is that extremes always depend on the phasing of a whole number of conditions and if just one is slightly out then the prediction falls apart. General patterns (a bit of rain and wind) are much easier to get right.

    The same happens with extreme storms and snowfall. Timing is everything.


    I worked out the implied probability of 40C a while ago based on the distribution of yearly maxes and it was within bounds but way over a 100 year return. Anything higher than 40C would be off the scale. I'll have to dig it out.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    Long not-being-able-to-go-to-the-doctor and Long not-getting-a-proper-education are also real things.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,810

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    Not sure I follow. The article linked to is all about Rishi being Dom's puppet. Fair enough, but where does Ukraine fit in?
    Read the rest of the thread. Cummings seems to think we should leave Ukraine to its fate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,730
    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    Because that still does not give much extra opportunity to bright kids in poor seaside towns or northern ex industrial areas who are still going to do worse in the local comp without the chance or a grammar schools than kids going to a comprehensive or academy in league Surrey or expensive Kensington and Chelsea
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083
    Selebian said:

    dixiedean said:

    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    Who's unhappy with streaming? I struggle to think of a secondary school which doesn't.
    There may be one.
    One near us did not up until around ten years ago (my FiL was head at a local primary and liaison with the secondary in question as well as another local secondary so was aware of this - my wife also went there). Was talking about it the other day, coincidentally.

    Mind you, that school ended up in special measures*, got Akademi-ised and changed practices. Streams now.

    *it wasn't particularly bad when my wife went there, but she still remembers the lack of streaming in e.g. maths being really weird. Part of the class doing differentiation and integration while another part was trying to master fractions.
    Just outed myself as a Russian bot with my unique spelling of 'academy' as 'akademi'. Ooops :open_mouth:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,730

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    I highly doubt it, if Sunak abandoned Ukraine he would himself lose a VONC
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout.
    Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
    But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid

    "Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"

    https://qz.com/work/2167480/long-covid-is-shrinking-the-workforce/

    Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't

    My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,800

    It comes as no surprise that the newly installed LTNs in East Oxford are being attacked and removed by frustrated residents. A more measured approach would have avoided the anger that has been created.

    Yes, I agree with that.

    A big bang like this isn't what the lobby groups were expecting and it's made the whole thing much more difficult. If they'd started with (say) Flo Park and Divinity Road, plus bus and cycle measures on the main roads, then there could have been a much more gradual roll-out without the current poisonous atmosphere.

    Anyway, this is probably all better suited to oxfordbetting than a national site ;)
    It is the reason why I want Shapps out of office as soon as possible!
    Surely they're not going for Shapps? He's scarcely more credible than the current clown.
    They won't. But I want him out of ministerial office completely
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    The battle for the Tory right is getting increasingly congested

    Hearing that Jacob Rees-Mogg could throw his hat into the ring for the leadership

    If Priti Patel does as well there would be *four* candidates vying for the Tory right:

    Truss
    Braverman
    Patel
    Rees-Mogg

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1546454045409398789
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    may have new or recurring symptoms at a later time

    Yeah, it's a respiratory virus. I had a cold earlier in the year. If I get another one, I'll have new or recurring symptoms, but it's not a "long cold".
    You're not normally this mulishly stupid or blinkered. I detect Normalcy Bias
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
    What happens to the endorsements of those who are defeated?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    RH1992 said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.

    As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years.
    If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them.
    There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.

    What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.

    There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.


    Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
    Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.

    "Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
    The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.

    But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍

    We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
    Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.

    The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.

    In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
    Oh boo frigging hoo.

    Make the town centre more appealling then.

    What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?

    For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
    One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
    In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi

    It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain

    It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols

    Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk

    There's no reason that can't be done in this country.

    Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.

    I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.

    If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
    Liverpool 1 was possible because it was land available within the city that could be cheaply bought and renovated (equally moving the town centre say 200metres in a different direction). Leeds and Manchester was the same, cheap and available land allowed retail to be built within the confines of the town centre with the consequence of the town centre moving x00 yards in a different direction.

    That simply isn't possible in other places which is why Sheffield ended up with Meadowhall (out of town) rather than Sheffield One (within the City).
    Meadowhall is easy to reach via public transport too which makes the problem worse with Sheffield city centre.

    One example of cities and big shopping centres co-existing is Newcastle. Newcastle city centre seems to thrive despite the MetroCentre existing just a few miles away. The MetroCentre is easy to get to by car with it being directly off the A1 but Tyne and Wear's metro system means that for public transport users it's way easier to get to Newcastle city centre.

    With my own city of Leeds, I live 35-40 mins walk from the centre of the city, 2 mins from the local station into Leeds (6 minute train journey) and often find myself driving in in poorer weather due to cheap parking on the outskirts of the centre at £1.40 for 2 hours. The train isn't appealing as it's only every 30 minutes and I can park 5 minutes further walk past the station for half the price of a return ticket.
    Manchester seems to thrive with the Trafford Centre, too.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,810
    HYUFD said:

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    I highly doubt it, if Sunak abandoned Ukraine he would himself lose a VONC
    He wouldn’t need to do it overtly, just copy Scholz’s approach.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530
    Scott_xP said:

    The battle for the Tory right is getting increasingly congested

    Hearing that Jacob Rees-Mogg could throw his hat into the ring for the leadership

    If Priti Patel does as well there would be *four* candidates vying for the Tory right:

    Truss
    Braverman
    Patel
    Rees-Mogg

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1546454045409398789


    Badenoch too?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I'm very much hoping that Kemi Badenoch can overtake one or both of those in order to go the membership.
    Unless I'm missing something, we can't really infer who will be in the final two at this stage with too much certainty - the redistribution of the votes from the also-rans will be hugely complex and uncertain, and it will be far from the case that all of candidate x's support can be assumed to transfer to candidate y.

    That said, I think HYUFD is in the right ballpark here - my expectation is Sunak and one other: I think the other is more likely to be Truss than Mordaunt, but Mordaunt is probably close.
    But I wouldn't go as far as to say that this outcome is 'likely' yet - just more likely than any of the numerous other possible permutations.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,167
    edited July 11
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
    I can't see her getting a coronation. I don't think enough Tory MPs trust or respect her. But she may be transfer friendly and come top.


    If anyone has a better opinion on likely transfers, do let me know.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    edited July 11

    Back on the weather front, GFS 06Z run has 41C again...

    It probably won't happen, but it remains a possibility. Really hope it doesn't.


    The reason these things doesn't normally occur despite being modelled is that extremes always depend on the phasing of a whole number of conditions and if just one is slightly out then the prediction falls apart. General patterns (a bit of rain and wind) are much easier to get right.

    The same happens with extreme storms and snowfall. Timing is everything.


    I worked out the implied probability of 40C a while ago based on the distribution of yearly maxes and it was within bounds but way over a 100 year return. Anything higher than 40C would be off the scale. I'll have to dig it out.

    Yeah the extreme of the heat is pushed out by 48 hours to Tuesday, with Monday also a v high 39, but also by the Tuesday the heat is passing eastward through the continent. Seems unlikely to me it could build to the low 40s here at the tip of it. Even if the pattern verified id expect the temp max to downgrade (but still be in the ballpark of record breaking somewhere)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,730
    edited July 11
    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
    What happens to the endorsements of those who are defeated?
    Hunt's will go to Tugendhat, other rightwinger ERG candidate supporters will switch to other rightwing ERG Leave candidates not Truss. Shapps supporters likely switch to Mordaunt, Javid supporters to Sunak
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    So PB's answer to the problem of Long Covid is to say "Long Covid doesn't exist, it's just like getting a cold"

    Brilliant

    In 1938 they'd be saying Adolf Hitler is actually a small dog in Hamburg, and Nazism is like the Boy Scouts
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The battle for the Tory right is getting increasingly congested

    Hearing that Jacob Rees-Mogg could throw his hat into the ring for the leadership

    If Priti Patel does as well there would be *four* candidates vying for the Tory right:

    Truss
    Braverman
    Patel
    Rees-Mogg

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1546454045409398789


    Badenoch too?
    Question - Are there any "establishment" Tory MPs currently backing one of the right slate rags in order to thwart Truss so Sunak has an easier ride ?
    A game of Snakes and ... more snakes.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    This is interesting: reminiscent of Rishi Sunak, Oliver Dowden and Robert Jenrick backing Boris Johnson in 2019, three notable rising star MPs have used The Times to roll in behind Ready for Rishi.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/98a8c2ee-0069-11ed-809e-d123192dfb7c?shareToken=b9b7f0965a023c46be36a1ecdbfd92d4
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,166
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    may have new or recurring symptoms at a later time

    Yeah, it's a respiratory virus. I had a cold earlier in the year. If I get another one, I'll have new or recurring symptoms, but it's not a "long cold".
    No you won't. You will have new symptoms of the new infection.

    ~Things are what they are, not what you and Barty would like them to be.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,716

    Pulpstar said:

    I had some cyclists annoy me for the first time in years whilst driving yesterday. Four of them with about 20 feet between each cyclist in their pace line. Now I don't expect Team Sky/Ineos discipline but it was the worst pace line I've come across yet. Made passing a bit of a nightmare.

    "Keep a gap of less than one cycle length in a pace line" for the Highway code.

    There has been a lot of discussion about this sort of sports cycling locally.

    As far as I have been able to work out, this is the only organised sporting activity that uses the public highway/realm in this way. All other team activity takes place in dedicated areas like pools, parks or pitches.

    I guess there may be road running groups but never seen those in operation on the roads. Pavements yes, roads no.

    I appreciate that cycling clubs aren't going to be able to use dedicated roadways. But there has to be an acknowledgement that what they are doing is a privilege more that an absolute right.

    We wouldn't expect road users to accommodate a group of kids playing football on the street. So why should a group of cyclists engaged in their sport be afforded any special consideration if they choose to cycle as an organised group activity using the public highway?

    An awareness that this sort of cycling does have the potential to cause delay to other road users and a willingness to break formation if a significant number of other road users are being held up would not be too much to ask. It is about being considerate.

    And that consideration should apply to all road users whether they are using 2 wheels or 4.

    And yes, I know that cyclists are more vulnerable. But in a shared public space, consideration and respect is vital from all users not just the powered ones.
    Runners surely use the public highway in groups? We occasionally even do runs from our gym as a part of the WOD; they hate it :smile: .

    I can't find the phrase "pace line" in the current version of the Highway Code, and I can't find the an earlier one, but Cycling UK were somewhat unhappy about the way the "Cycling in Groups" (Rule 66) section was reworded. AIUI best advice is usually 2 abreast to be seen and to keep the line shorter, or to be in several groups with gaps if a large number. or single file is that makes for safer overtakes. Their proposals, which were not accepted as suggested, are here:
    https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/new-highway-code-and-hierarchy

    One solution is that cycle tracks need to be designed to be segregated from other modes, to be a suitable width (which means 3.5-4.0m as a minimum for a 2-way route), and a spec to be suitable for sustained riding at 20-25 mph for important routes - especially surface, sightlines and radii. Then they will be used more, and the roads relatively less.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445

    One thing about Kemi Badenoch is that she is a very nice and kind person. Which is certainly not true of some of the other more right orientated candidates. I am surprised that her odds are so short given her lack of experience but I suspect after so much nastiness some people want someone nicer.

    Kemi's odds are not "so short" and are drifting back out after the Gove boost. According to the betting it is a three horse race, although political betting markets are often wrong. Here are Betfair's prices for next PM right now (again note that next PM and next party leader prices might be slightly different).

    2.78 Rishi Sunak
    4.8 Penny Mordaunt
    6 Liz Truss
    13.5 Tom Tugendhat
    19.5 Jeremy Hunt
    20 Kemi Badenoch
    32 Sajid Javid
    46 Nadhim Zahawi
    50 Priti Patel
    60 Dominic Raab
    60 Suella Braverman
    It seems to me that there are two types of Tories - Happy Tories and Angry Tories. The party used to be a predominantly Happy party. Thatcher was unusually good at appealing to both groups. Major and Cameron were better at attracting the Happy Group. Johnson won in London on a Happy Ticket. Brexit was the Happy vs Angry issue par excellence, and has put the Tories more squarely in the Angry camp. Johnson's core supporters are Angry. This is where the votes will be mostly among the membership.
    Sunak, Shapps, Zahawi, Hunt and Tugendhat are representatives of the Happy wing, while Truss and the various right wing candidates seem more likely to attract the Angry side. Mordaunt I guess is more Happy than Angry but may have crossover appeal. So Sunak probably loses. And Truss looks more likely to be where the Angry vote coalesces to stop him.
    They need to regain the happy ones. The angry ones seem to have stayed loyal. Although without Boris will they remain so?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 53,997
    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
    What happens to the endorsements of those who are defeated?
    That is the heart of the issue and when the 1922 announce the rules tonight things should move quite quickly, with the last 2 to go to the membership on the 21st July by which time your question will be answered

    And if JRM is thinking of standing then the 10% suggested requirement to stand (36) should see him kicked into touch
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
    Exactly. I keep being told she's about to pull 20-30 MPs out the hat.

    Where are they?

    We're at almost half the parliamentary party declaring now and she's still barely at 50% of the (high) qualifying threshold.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    Scott_xP said:

    The battle for the Tory right is getting increasingly congested

    Hearing that Jacob Rees-Mogg could throw his hat into the ring for the leadership

    If Priti Patel does as well there would be *four* candidates vying for the Tory right:

    Truss
    Braverman
    Patel
    Rees-Mogg

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1546454045409398789

    Be a change to have a full on Ascot top hat in the ring.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Leon, not everybody replied that way.

    I'd be greatly relieved if long COVID does get debunked as overblown, but I'm not of that view currently.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,053
    Leon said:

    So PB's answer to the problem of Long Covid is to say "Long Covid doesn't exist, it's just like getting a cold"

    Brilliant

    In 1938 they'd be saying Adolf Hitler is actually a small dog in Hamburg, and Nazism is like the Boy Scouts

    There’s some very clever people with a generic Coronavirus mRNA vaccine in trials, and drugs like Paxlovid have been approved. In the Western world at least, the pandemic is over, even if there’s a few minor restrictions remaining in some areas.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    Because that still does not give much extra opportunity to bright kids in poor seaside towns or northern ex industrial areas who are still going to do worse in the local comp without the chance or a grammar schools than kids going to a comprehensive or academy in league Surrey or expensive Kensington and Chelsea
    I'd say grammar schools work less well in areas like that, actually.
    Where they work well is in places like Trafford where population density is such that a choice of schools is realistically possible. I always wonder how realistic it is for poor but smart kid in generic coastal town to go to grammar school, the nearest of which might be 8 miles away.
    That said, the one-town-one-school approach can lead to complacency and underachievement.

    As I said earlier, complex set of issues without easy answers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I had some cyclists annoy me for the first time in years whilst driving yesterday. Four of them with about 20 feet between each cyclist in their pace line. Now I don't expect Team Sky/Ineos discipline but it was the worst pace line I've come across yet. Made passing a bit of a nightmare.

    "Keep a gap of less than one cycle length in a pace line" for the Highway code.

    There has been a lot of discussion about this sort of sports cycling locally.

    As far as I have been able to work out, this is the only organised sporting activity that uses the public highway/realm in this way. All other team activity takes place in dedicated areas like pools, parks or pitches.

    I guess there may be road running groups but never seen those in operation on the roads. Pavements yes, roads no.

    I appreciate that cycling clubs aren't going to be able to use dedicated roadways. But there has to be an acknowledgement that what they are doing is a privilege more that an absolute right.

    We wouldn't expect road users to accommodate a group of kids playing football on the street. So why should a group of cyclists engaged in their sport be afforded any special consideration if they choose to cycle as an organised group activity using the public highway?

    An awareness that this sort of cycling does have the potential to cause delay to other road users and a willingness to break formation if a significant number of other road users are being held up would not be too much to ask. It is about being considerate.

    And that consideration should apply to all road users whether they are using 2 wheels or 4.

    And yes, I know that cyclists are more vulnerable. But in a shared public space, consideration and respect is vital from all users not just the powered ones.
    Runners surely use the public highway in groups? We occasionally even do runs from our gym as a part of the WOD; they hate it :smile: .

    I can't find the phrase "pace line" in the current version of the Highway Code, and I can't find the an earlier one, but Cycling UK were somewhat unhappy about the way the "Cycling in Groups" (Rule 66) section was reworded. AIUI best advice is usually 2 abreast to be seen and to keep the line shorter, or to be in several groups with gaps if a large number. or single file is that makes for safer overtakes. Their proposals, which were not accepted as suggested, are here:
    https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/new-highway-code-and-hierarchy

    One solution is that cycle tracks need to be designed to be segregated from other modes, to be a suitable width (which means 3.5-4.0m as a minimum for a 2-way route), and a spec to be suitable for sustained riding at 20-25 mph for important routes - especially surface, sightlines and radii. Then they will be used more, and the roads relatively less.
    Nah I'm perfectly happy with cyclists using the road, just this lot of jokers were taking up more room than a group of 20 sunday morning 50 mile club riders doing it properly (2 abreast, wheel to wheel).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    Despite the heat, it doesn't seem to have deterred folk from sitting in their cars eating their lunch. Looking at the beach below.
    Something I don't get at all.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813
    HYUFD said:

    Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1546447917967413248

    I highly doubt it, if Sunak abandoned Ukraine he would himself lose a VONC
    Then, the Tories are nailed on to lose GE 2024.

    Because the Cost of Living Crisis needs fixing for the Tories to stand a chance.

    And an Endless War with Eurasia almost guarantees it cannot be fixed.

    I am sure an incoming SKS Government will be much more pragmatic.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,095
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout.
    Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
    But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid

    "Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"

    https://qz.com/work/2167480/long-covid-is-shrinking-the-workforce/

    Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't

    My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
    Love it. The labour shortage is now down to the mysterious 'Long Covid' not the fact that Brexit has prevented loads of people from continental Europe from coming to work here.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530
    Pulpstar said:

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The battle for the Tory right is getting increasingly congested

    Hearing that Jacob Rees-Mogg could throw his hat into the ring for the leadership

    If Priti Patel does as well there would be *four* candidates vying for the Tory right:

    Truss
    Braverman
    Patel
    Rees-Mogg

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1546454045409398789


    Badenoch too?
    Question - Are there any "establishment" Tory MPs currently backing one of the right slate rags in order to thwart Truss so Sunak has an easier ride ?
    A game of Snakes and ... more snakes.
    I imagine that when the endorsements bar is set, a couple of the right wingers will get eliminated, and their votes will go to the next best right wing offer...?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,053
    dixiedean said:

    Despite the heat, it doesn't seem to have deterred folk from sitting in their cars eating their lunch. Looking at the beach below.
    Something I don't get at all.

    They have air conditioning in their cars.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Dawning, aren't the US and continental Europe also seeing labour shortages?

    If so, that would lend credence to the long COVID view as a causal factor.
  • Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    dixiedean said:

    kjh said:

    I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).

    Who's unhappy with streaming? I struggle to think of a secondary school which doesn't.
    There may be one.
    One near us did not up until around ten years ago (my FiL was head at a local primary and liaison with the secondary in question as well as another local secondary so was aware of this - my wife also went there). Was talking about it the other day, coincidentally.

    Mind you, that school ended up in special measures*, got Akademi-ised and changed practices. Streams now.

    *it wasn't particularly bad when my wife went there, but she still remembers the lack of streaming in e.g. maths being really weird. Part of the class doing differentiation and integration while another part was trying to master fractions.
    Just outed myself as a Russian bot with my unique spelling of 'academy' as 'akademi'. Ooops :open_mouth:
    Soldier: Вы советские шпионы?
    Jackson: Nyet.
    O'Neill: Daniel!?
    Jackson: He just asked if we were Soviet spies, I just...
    Soldier: Come with me.
    O'Neill: Sure, you bet. (to Daniel) Nyet!?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62m2E6wCW8
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,166
    Scott_xP said:

    This is interesting: reminiscent of Rishi Sunak, Oliver Dowden and Robert Jenrick backing Boris Johnson in 2019, three notable rising star MPs have used The Times to roll in behind Ready for Rishi.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/98a8c2ee-0069-11ed-809e-d123192dfb7c?shareToken=b9b7f0965a023c46be36a1ecdbfd92d4

    All totty, pushing his totty friendliness.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,153
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
    I can't see her getting a coronation. I don't think enough Tory MPs trust or respect her. But she may be transfer friendly and come top.


    If anyone has a better opinion on likely transfers, do let me know.
    I don't have a better view. But it is really hard to predict. Some people choose one candidate from, say, the left of the party *because* they don't like another candidate from the same wing.

    I admire the effort, but the error bars are enormous.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout.
    Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
    But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid

    "Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"

    https://qz.com/work/2167480/long-covid-is-shrinking-the-workforce/

    Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't

    My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
    My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports.
    A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it
    In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout.
    Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
    But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid

    "Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"

    https://qz.com/work/2167480/long-covid-is-shrinking-the-workforce/

    Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't

    My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
    Love it. The labour shortage is now down to the mysterious 'Long Covid' not the fact that Brexit has prevented loads of people from continental Europe from coming to work here.
    I'd say the main reason is neither, but high house prices. Both because lots of fairly wealthy 50-65s are retiring or switching to part time earlier than anyone would have expected and also because it reduces labour mobility.

    The other two factors of course both exist and make things worse but its a cocktail of bad news that has hit at once, not a single issue.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout.
    Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
    But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid

    "Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"

    https://qz.com/work/2167480/long-covid-is-shrinking-the-workforce/

    Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't

    My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
    Love it. The labour shortage is now down to the mysterious 'Long Covid' not the fact that Brexit has prevented loads of people from continental Europe from coming to work here.
    Another one. Total denial

    Do you honestly think some conniving Leaver at the Bank of England has deviously decided to blame a fictitious disease, rather than admit that Brexit is the real cause of labour market shortages?

    Really? I mean, REALLY?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    MISTY said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The battle for the Tory right is getting increasingly congested

    Hearing that Jacob Rees-Mogg could throw his hat into the ring for the leadership

    If Priti Patel does as well there would be *four* candidates vying for the Tory right:

    Truss
    Braverman
    Patel
    Rees-Mogg

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1546454045409398789


    Badenoch too?
    Question - Are there any "establishment" Tory MPs currently backing one of the right slate rags in order to thwart Truss so Sunak has an easier ride ?
    A game of Snakes and ... more snakes.
    I imagine that when the endorsements bar is set, a couple of the right wingers will get eliminated, and their votes will go to the next best right wing offer...?
    His support for Badenoch might well be genuine but I always assume Gove is playing a game with these things.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,034
    I've seen some pretty bad ideas on PB, but regenerating our beautiful towns and cities by building loads of multi-storey car parks in the middle of them, with new roads to get there, just about takes the biscuit. Cultural vandalism on a huge scale.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,800
    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I had some cyclists annoy me for the first time in years whilst driving yesterday. Four of them with about 20 feet between each cyclist in their pace line. Now I don't expect Team Sky/Ineos discipline but it was the worst pace line I've come across yet. Made passing a bit of a nightmare.

    "Keep a gap of less than one cycle length in a pace line" for the Highway code.

    There has been a lot of discussion about this sort of sports cycling locally.

    As far as I have been able to work out, this is the only organised sporting activity that uses the public highway/realm in this way. All other team activity takes place in dedicated areas like pools, parks or pitches.

    I guess there may be road running groups but never seen those in operation on the roads. Pavements yes, roads no.

    I appreciate that cycling clubs aren't going to be able to use dedicated roadways. But there has to be an acknowledgement that what they are doing is a privilege more that an absolute right.

    We wouldn't expect road users to accommodate a group of kids playing football on the street. So why should a group of cyclists engaged in their sport be afforded any special consideration if they choose to cycle as an organised group activity using the public highway?

    An awareness that this sort of cycling does have the potential to cause delay to other road users and a willingness to break formation if a significant number of other road users are being held up would not be too much to ask. It is about being considerate.

    And that consideration should apply to all road users whether they are using 2 wheels or 4.

    And yes, I know that cyclists are more vulnerable. But in a shared public space, consideration and respect is vital from all users not just the powered ones.
    Runners surely use the public highway in groups? We occasionally even do runs from our gym as a part of the WOD; they hate it :smile: .

    I can't find the phrase "pace line" in the current version of the Highway Code, and I can't find the an earlier one, but Cycling UK were somewhat unhappy about the way the "Cycling in Groups" (Rule 66) section was reworded. AIUI best advice is usually 2 abreast to be seen and to keep the line shorter, or to be in several groups with gaps if a large number. or single file is that makes for safer overtakes. Their proposals, which were not accepted as suggested, are here:
    https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/new-highway-code-and-hierarchy

    One solution is that cycle tracks need to be designed to be segregated from other modes, to be a suitable width (which means 3.5-4.0m as a minimum for a 2-way route), and a spec to be suitable for sustained riding at 20-25 mph for important routes - especially surface, sightlines and radii. Then they will be used more, and the roads relatively less.
    I have never seen runners using roads only pavements so you may be right but I have never seen it outside of organised events which are subject to regulation/road closures.

    I don't disagree that improvements to cycle ways are necessary.

    But I do not believe we should make special accommodation for sports cycling involving large groups.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,167
    HYUFD said:

    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
    I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.

    My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.

    Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
    Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
    What happens to the endorsements of those who are defeated?
    Hunt's will go to Tugendhat, other rightwinger ERG candidate supporters will switch to other rightwing ERG Leave candidates not Truss. Shapps supporters likely switch to Mordaunt, Javid supporters to Sunak
    I've incorporated your suggestions. It knocks out Sunak and leaves Mordaunt and Truss as the final two, assuming Braverman transfers to Truss not Sunak or Mordaunt. How likely is that?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Roberts, Stargate: SG-1 is fantastic.

    Couldn't find a video of it by itself, but the exchange with O'Neill when they meet not-Odo is a great moment.

    "I believe he is concealing something, O'Neill."

    "Like what?"

    "I do not know. He is concealing it."
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 3,367
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.

    Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd

    I'm very much hoping that Kemi Badenoch can overtake one or both of those in order to go the membership.
    Unless I'm missing something, we can't really infer who will be in the final two at this stage with too much certainty - the redistribution of the votes from the also-rans will be hugely complex and uncertain, and it will be far from the case that all of candidate x's support can be assumed to transfer to candidate y.

    That said, I think HYUFD is in the right ballpark here - my expectation is Sunak and one other: I think the other is more likely to be Truss than Mordaunt, but Mordaunt is probably close.
    But I wouldn't go as far as to say that this outcome is 'likely' yet - just more likely than any of the numerous other possible permutations.
    One of the reasons I would be more confident in Sunak v Truss than Sunak v Mordaunt is that I think Sunak and Mordaunt are fishing in the same pool a little in terms of MPs, whereas the right of the Tory Party are more likely to go for Braverman/Badenoch/Priti and then transfer to Truss (IMHO).

    That said I’m not sure there’s any guarantee Rishi gets to the second round. Yes he’s ahead in declared support but he’s not that far ahead of the pack. He is probably the most likely to get there at this stage though.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    It comes as no surprise that the newly installed LTNs in East Oxford are being attacked and removed by frustrated residents. A more measured approach would have avoided the anger that has been created.

    Yes, I agree with that.

    A big bang like this isn't what the lobby groups were expecting and it's made the whole thing much more difficult. If they'd started with (say) Flo Park and Divinity Road, plus bus and cycle measures on the main roads, then there could have been a much more gradual roll-out without the current poisonous atmosphere.

    Anyway, this is probably all better suited to oxfordbetting than a national site ;)
    In my part of the country, the thing which is riling the public is the major roads which have had or are having massive (and virtually unused two-way cycle paths on both sides of the road - with raised kerbs, naturally, so that ambulances get stuck in traffic. And it doesn't leave enough room for bus pull-in bays, so when the bus stops, everyone gets stuck behind it idling their engine.
This discussion has been closed.